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.
you know I think we would argue for two hours in some conference room somewhere in the world and at the end of it we would come up with the definition [ __ ] happens and then you die you know it's it's really just it's frustrating I don't even want to talk about it now and you know Vadim Gladishev has uh has been on like a evangelical rant about how do we define aging we don't know how to define it he asked that question at every conference and I I think it's a fair question.
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.