David Sinclair· PhD
But two and a half years is a big deal, for two reasons. One is Greg is now showing that you can repeat this, and go back not just two and half years, but five years.
Loading…
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.
But two and a half years is a big deal, for two reasons. One is Greg is now showing that you can repeat this, and go back not just two and half years, but five years.
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.
he told me that repeated treatments over more than a year actually reduce age based on this blood clock, even more so, and people are going back by a decade apparently