Peter Attia· MD
40 for centenarians had more than 230 mutations between them another five to six mutations that should have caused them diseases and none of them had this disease in hundred years of life
Loading…
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.
40 for centenarians had more than 230 mutations between them another five to six mutations that should have caused them diseases and none of them had this disease in hundred years of life
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 basically the centenarians don't have the perfect genome which left us with finding genes that not protective right that slows their aging are protectives even against genes that are thought at least as i'm saying it's probably not totally true thought to most probably cause a disease