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 dogs have to be at least seven years old at the time of randomization and they can't be sick they can't have any significant pre-existing age-related disease and and that's important because the vast majority of clinical trials that are done today whether it's in companion animals or people are disease specific clinical trials in patients who already have a pre-existing disorder this is a study of normative aging
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 dogs have to be between 40 and 110 pounds and that's for the simple reason that big dogs age faster than small dogs so again in order to get the statistical power that we needed we are working in a population of dogs that are more rapidly aging than a smaller weight body size population