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.
we used to think that free radical damage and dna damage was the main cause right it's been very hard to reconcile that with a lot of data you can basically cause a mouse to have 100 times more mutations and it lives fine it doesn't get out get old so that's confusing
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.
you can basically cause a mouse to have 100 times more mutations and it lives fine it doesn't get out get old so that's confusing
so we used to think that free radical damage and dna damage was the main cause right