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.
Yeah, we don't know, this is new territory, and I think that's a really important point, is we don't know the dangers of resetting the age. We believe that it's safe. So far, there's been no indication of any downside. But one of the big worries is if you go back too far in age, you can stimulate cancer cells. So that's another thing to watch out for.
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 fda is going to be extremely skeptical of this kind of approach so you know as people move these through the clinical trial process they are going to have to show with really rock solid compelling data that these these reprogramming strategies are not going to cause significant side effects
there are lots of barriers just in moving something through the clinical trial process i think the the reprogramming stuff is a perfect example so you actually alluded to this earlier right are there are there potential side effects right absolutely you push it too far right you reprogram too far you're gone we know that can't certain types of cancers are a side effect of this partial reprogramming in mice
as people move these through the clinical trial process they are going to have to show with really rock solid compelling data that these these reprogramming strategies are not going to cause significant side effects