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.
it's one thing to uh hypothesize that there are going to be molecular biomarkers that reflect aging right biological age those are not necessarily going to be the same biomarkers that reflect rate of aging and what you're talking about a short-term readout almost has to reflect rate of Aging or even you know potentially this is speculative reversal of biological aging and so my only point is those may not actually be the same markers for each of those classes
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.
it's like aging rate indicators which are much less well studied and much less well established in principle are things you can measure that tell you whether you're in a slow aging state or a normal State