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.
if the clocks are working you should absolutely be able to detect that signature well in advance of end of life right and I think that would you know if somebody did that experiment and it worked I would be convinced that would that would make me really be a believer you know in in the epigenetic clocks
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.
the experiment you want to do right is you take a cohort of mice at say 20 months you measure their epigenetic age in blood you do a few interventions that we know should extend lifespan right you measure their epigenetic age in blood 6 months later you do it 6 months later and then you see at an individual and population level what the what the survival is and you can do end of life pathology and so if the clocks are working you should absolutely be able to detect that signature well in advance of end of life
if somebody let's say at Altos publishes a paper three years from now that they have made a mouse live six years by multiple rounds of transient epigenetic reprogramming I'll be like their biggest fan they moved the needle that convinces me that that strategy modulates biological aging nobody's done that yet