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.
I think that the evidence that NAD and precursors is geroprotective meaning we are going to take a bunch of people who don't have disease and we're going to make them live longer I think this is I think this is uh very very low probability but not zero
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.
I think NAD is is is very very interesting molecule and I don't think we could throw out you know manipulating NAD as something that could be important for aging I just think the evidence is there at this point