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.
I agree that the idea of a kit that you can buy to measure biological Age first of all the stuff that's out there doesn't work and we should can and should talk about that but also I sort of agree with the idea that reducing it to one number while conceptually I think it's possible I think in reality is going to be really really difficult to do but do I believe that there is a biological aging process that is different from chronological aging absolutely yes absolutely
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.
I think these are really good research tools I think the direct to Consumer component has gotten way ahead of itself and I think I align with what you were saying about the way you think about these tests is I don't think there's a lot of value in clinical practice right now because we don't know precision or accuracy and I don't think you can make actionable recommendations based on these tests
I think we will get to a point where the technology is developed far enough and the quality control is good enough on the consumer side that these tests will be better than just chronological age