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.
When they're senescent, they sit around and they secrete pro-inflammatory cytokines. So then they damage nearby cells because the inflammatory cytokines. So it's like this vicious cycle and it's why you need to get them back.
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.
The bad news is, as these cells gradually accumulate with age and don't disappear, they begin to drive this process of chronic inflammation. And that chronic inflammation caused by senescent cells is also a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it attracts the immune cells that will eventually begin to cause tissue destruction and degeneration. On the other hand, the cytokines that attract the immune cells can also have an effect on neighboring cells and cause them to not function properly.