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.
and that's already a deep question so the clock does measure chronological age however it's of course not a perfect measure of chronologic age there's always an error for example if i analyze the blood from a 50 year old the epigenetic clock may say well this person is actually 55 or 45 and so there's a small error and this error is actually biologically meaningful you know it's not just noise but rather it it is in part related to what people call biological age
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.