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.
the bigger point at least for me as an outsider is aging malleable yes or no to me that's the question that matters and if prior to the 1990s if the answer was believed no aging is not malleable it is what it is then it's a very uninteresting field to be in
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 would add one more phillip to that the question everybody was asking and which i used to think was pertinent is what causes aging and now i don't think that anymore i think the real question that we're all trying to answer or ought to be trying to answer is what is it that can slow aging