Peter Attia· MD
Um and that over time that is increasing monotonically and linearly and and not alterably. No exactly superimposed on that. So, so we have you know damage occurring
Loading…
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.
Um and that over time that is increasing monotonically and linearly and and not alterably. No exactly superimposed on that. So, so we have you know damage occurring
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.
There's also another component usually in these biologic aging clocks that's age related and it's kind of oscillating and it sort of oscillates around that first component going up. And I think that's why you see these methylation clocks are going up and down and changing and everything. And I think of that component is how well you're functioning at the damage state you're at.