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.
I think Bill Krauss in the discussion of his paper if I recall he he used the Framingham index of cardio cardiometabolic health and there was an improvement uh in the age y i I don't know exactly the index yeah using the using the Framingham risk calculator of course everything would have got better based on the biomarkers and he was quite spectacular it was like they were gaining 10 years in two 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.
and Bill crra published a a quite sided paper • like five years after the end of the study in jamama on all the cardiovascular cardiometabolic risk factors and everything was tremendously improved despite the fact that these people were healthy to begin with BMI 22 to 27.9 and so on and remarkable Improvement in all these markers of secondary aging
using the using the Framingham risk calculator of course everything would have got better based on the biomarkers and it was quite spectacular it was like they were gaining 10 years in two years