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.
there's a paper a famous paper by vanerson Kirkland and several other colleagues Darren Baker Baker are these the guys at Mayo I remember this they they've left two of them have left but yes uh they alleged that they could remove senescent cells by taking genetically modified mice giving them a drug all the ccent cells would go away and the mice lived longer according to this was on the cover of nature it was on the cover of nature I remember this one
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.
my job was to do the lifespan experiment we got the mice from uh Kirkland and V person we got Camp's mice we got the drugs from them and we gave the drugs to the mice at 18 months and you know they had no effect on sessen cells not one we tried seven times to show depletion of sessen cells by in their mice using their drug and and went zero for seven
No. So that was an increase in median lifespan... but not an increase in maximum lifespan. And I should have distinguished between median lifespan and maximum lifespan. So the increase in maximum lifespan was not significant. The increase in median lifespan was significant and so that's what we call health span.