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.
Overtly clear that inflammation is a double-edged sword. That we need it, the reason we have it, as with anything that's genetically carried over that hasn't just mutated into oblivion over evolutionary time, is because it's good for us. Because it's an essential component of how we survive infections. However, there are certain aspects of age-related damage accumulation, which because they are only age-related, are not very interesting to evolution.
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.