The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Well, to be clear, our genome has the Yamanaka genes in it, but they're normally only turned on when we're little embryos. So we had to reintroduce those three genes with a system where we could turn them on at will, and we were using an antibiotic to turn them on called doxycycline.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
we gave it an on-off switch which is important because you don't want to become a stem cell you don't want your eye to develop a tumor if it mine we did another trick which is important which is we left off the fourth Yamanaka factor called Mik now Mik is a well-known on Cugine gene that causes cancer that didn't take a genius to leave that off but what was surprisingly rewarding to see was that the Mik gene was superfluous we didn't need it to reprogram cells to be partially young again how did you program the on/off switch oh that's really interesting - this is a in the field we use a system where we can feed a cell or a mouse doxycycline and it's just an antibiotic