Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
I think you shouldn't get senolytics before you're 70 or 80 years old I think probably forming although we start this study at 65 most of the studies so far that showed really large effect of metformine are people were recruited above the age of 50 so I think it's 50 so I I don't know to tell you for a singular patient who chronologically chronological age is 50 and biological age I don't know what it is
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.
it is possible that things that you're doing are good for you when you're young and against you when you're old right so when people are asking me on any of those geroprotectors gero Therapeutics vitamins um what what when do we start them okay the answer is I really I really don't know I think I think you shouldn't get senolytics before you're 70 or 80 years old I think probably forming although we start this study at 65 most of the studies so far that showed really large effect of metformine are people were recruited above the age of 50 so I think it's 50