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.
this program which we call CIP the collaborative interactions program unfortunately I think is going away next year the national aging Institute has decided that instead they want to replace it with a new program which they're calling the um uh uh Interventional biogerontology repository
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 national aging institute has decided that instead they want to replace it with a new program which they're calling the um Interventional biogerontology repository in which the the tissues will not be requested from us they'll be requested directly from the national aging institute and the national aging institute will make all decisions as to who gets the tissues who doesn't get the tissues how much tissue they get