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 wouldn't necessarily impact the biology of aging at all and this gets back to what i was talking about before which in for many diseases of aging there comes a point where the pathology of the disease is not normative aging anymore and so you can you can quite successfully treat or cure a disease of aging in an individual uh without impacting the biology of 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.
I think about age related disease as the sort of Downstream effect of biological aging and then in for most diseases there becomes a point where the pathology of that disease mechanistically is no longer the same as biological Aging in which case very good you should listen to him in and one of the implications of that is the interventions that slow biological aging may not work once you get past that point
And I think also it it explains very well why you know treating disease doesn't work because you have 50 failure states you can go into and each person based on their genetics and their lifestyle the hill to go over that failure state may be a little bit different some sometimes person's not going to go over this one but there's a chance you're going to go over a lot of different failures right and if you block one of them say you treat diabetes or something uh it you're still going to go over the other ones right and so you have the The only way to really slow aging is to keep the hill higher.