The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
it wasn't so much as a pivot but a decision to go one way rather than the other because in the beginning we thought you could do either and the decision was driven by a simple idea which is that were you to make molecules that would simply suppress the secretions of the cells but not remove the source of all of these factors you'd have a drug yet to take all the time
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.
what motivated us was this would be a drug you would have to take all the time and what we thought was so neat about the idea of making a molecule that could eliminate senescence cells which we then named we called them Senna lytic molecules
if you could make a Sen oolitic molecule you could dose it once and once you eliminate senescence cells the cells are not there anymore so these are not drugs you take every day every week or every month these might be dosed once a year and till your body makes more senescence cells
You may have in mice you can apply them every few months and in people, maybe every few years. So this could be interesting strategy to improve health by incrementally knocking down senescent cells every so often.