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.
the observation that some though not all of our drugs that work for us are fully effective when started late in life suggests two things one is the theoretical thing some things are going on late in life which are still reversible and and have a major effect on your health
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.
you could start an intervention intervention not even and get robust lifespan extension and for me honestly i reviewed that paper and when i when i first time i saw that result i'm like this changes everything we actually have a chance for translational geroscience because because you might be able to intervene late in the aging process and have significant impacts
the reason that things extend lifespan is basically it postpones all the bad stuff if a drug was going to slow aging you really do have to start it when you're young because a lot of Aging is what happens between the ages of 20 and 60