The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
lifespan is actually a really important metric here right lifespan is certainly still the gold standard in the aging field if we want to convince the scientific community that this is affecting aging it darn well better increase lifespan yeah it's also important to owners for obvious reasons
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.
I think lifespan is actually a really good metric of health span in dogs because most of the time that's not an easy decision right Hubbs owners are not going to put their dog down usually especially owners who want to participate in a study like this unless that dog is really sick so I actually think lifespan is really maybe more important in dogs as an outcome measure than it is in mice