This sounds like one of those sciency bullshit articles where
a) the study was on a subcategory of proteins that in some very boring and specific cases influence the aging of a certain type of cell in a minor way
b) the study was a miniscule pilot study with 10 participants
c) it explicitly said that it’s results are more than shaky and need further testing to prove anything
d) it didn’t mention humans aging at all
e) the participants were some kind of worm
but some journalist read half the excerpt, misunderstood it completely and did a catchy article about what he hallucinated into the study.
The state of science reporting has been absolute dog shit for decades. The vast majority of the time when you track down the study an article is based on, the claims of the article are either massively exaggerated, or sometimes even completely different than what the article claims. It seems like a whole industry of taking fairly mundane studies and punching them up into some exciting pieces of short fiction. So many years of garbage reporting has me immediately skeptical of any article with a bold claim, or which mentions any kind of significant breakthrough.
Coffee cures cancer… no, it causes cancer… it cures cancer, but only when drank with half a tablespoon of wine… but wine causes cancer… no cures it… no it does both but only with chocolate… chocolate cures cancer… no it causes cancer… no it… and so on and so forth…
This half-assed, sensationalistic reporting of studies that are completely insignificant outside of a specific case in their respective fields causes so much harm when it comes to the trust of people in science.
And thousands of people everywhere read that title, didn’t bother looking a single bit into it, and are now repeating to everyone they know “Japan cured aging!” until someone corrects them.
also there are aging studies that indicate getting damage cells to self destruct helps being healthier as you age so you want to increase senescence rather than reduce it.
This sounds like one of those sciency bullshit articles where
a) the study was on a subcategory of proteins that in some very boring and specific cases influence the aging of a certain type of cell in a minor way
b) the study was a miniscule pilot study with 10 participants
c) it explicitly said that it’s results are more than shaky and need further testing to prove anything
d) it didn’t mention humans aging at all
e) the participants were some kind of worm
but some journalist read half the excerpt, misunderstood it completely and did a catchy article about what he hallucinated into the study.
The state of science reporting has been absolute dog shit for decades. The vast majority of the time when you track down the study an article is based on, the claims of the article are either massively exaggerated, or sometimes even completely different than what the article claims. It seems like a whole industry of taking fairly mundane studies and punching them up into some exciting pieces of short fiction. So many years of garbage reporting has me immediately skeptical of any article with a bold claim, or which mentions any kind of significant breakthrough.
Coffee cures cancer… no, it causes cancer… it cures cancer, but only when drank with half a tablespoon of wine… but wine causes cancer… no cures it… no it does both but only with chocolate… chocolate cures cancer… no it causes cancer… no it… and so on and so forth…
This half-assed, sensationalistic reporting of studies that are completely insignificant outside of a specific case in their respective fields causes so much harm when it comes to the trust of people in science.
Hey now! It might not even be a journalist doing the hallucinating nowadays. We can get the robots to hallucinate for us!
And thousands of people everywhere read that title, didn’t bother looking a single bit into it, and are now repeating to everyone they know “Japan cured aging!” until someone corrects them.
Hey, clicks make money!! /s
also there are aging studies that indicate getting damage cells to self destruct helps being healthier as you age so you want to increase senescence rather than reduce it.