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.
So he discovered that with old age the muscle sort of deteriorates and and doesn't regenerate. And when he used the mouse, an old mouse and paired it with a young mouse and then now this young circulation um infusing if you will the old muscle, he regenerated that muscle and u it looked almost like a young muscle.
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 we saw that uh there stem cells in the brain of these mice that they got reactivated there was less inflammation more activity um that we can measure in the brain and then most importantly we actually saw that their memory function improved.
If you take the circulatory system of a young mouse and an old mouse, you put them together, the old mouse gets younger, and the young mouse gets older.
where basically you can take two mice and connect their circulatory systems. It's not a pleasant procedure if you're one of the mice but they'll do, what's called, heterochronic where they take one young mouse and one old mouse and connect them and then just say what happens to the aging. The young mouse, you know, is now having some influence from the old mouse and vice versa. And what we find is that the young mice has accelerated aging compared to one that's paired with another young mouse, and the old mouse is somewhat rejuvenated compared to an old mouse, compared to an old mouse.