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.
isn't too crucial really because provided the superoxide is formed and is it's not being formed accidentally this is a deliberate evolutionary hugely conserved mechanism for regulating the input of calories into a cell via a signal given from the mitochondria
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.
so what's so cool i read this on your blog is that when we actually create this super oxide we get you know you're getting you're getting uh protons or you know out here or you have electrons out here that are that are being picked up by oxygen they actually go on to the iron sulfur clusters of complex one and this is the n1a part of it right yeah it's up the top near near the flavored molecule uh-huh up here now that's flipping molar nuclei on a nucleotide um and uh n1a is is up the top there and it again anyone is controversial there are um nicely split studies that show that you can do genetic things to the anchoring of n1a and it makes no difference to superoxide and there are equally good studies showing that it's probably the source of the superoxide that forms the hydrogen peroxide that is the primary distant cell signaling molecule