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.
The point here being that these proteomic clocks and the epigenetic clocks, and some others like an immuno clock, can be used now to understand what slows down aging but importantly how do you reverse it with various treatments?
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.
So what I'd like to see Greg and his colleagues do is to measure aging of other tissues and measure it using different clocks, not just the Horvath or epigenetic clock. - There's a variety of clocks. There's glycan age, which are sugars that are attached to proteins that change over time, and there's one called immuno age.