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.
so but but so so scientifically then the hypothesis is it's the presence of something bad well it's both that is worse than the absence of something good I don't know the Alum is not going to give you the young person problem with that experiment to me we don't know now we don't if it's young blood is good old blood is bad or some combination we would automatically if we only did the plasma foris we would only be testing part of that
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.
is there something that is in the blood of old people that it would be good to remove and if so what is it and is there something a cell a molecule a set of three molecules that's in the blood of young people or mice that would be good for you the only purpose of the the only virtue of this parabiosis uh circus is to suggest that you know the answer might be yes there might be something you could remove from Old Blood a cell or more or some plasma molecule and there might be something good in the blood of young individuals so the challenge now is to find out what those things are
my thought is it's not simple it's not one thing it's not gdf11 for sure um if it were simple there's enough people looking at it they would have figured it out my guess is some combination