The verdict is correct in its skepticism, but it misses the bigger picture: science isn’t just about what’s proven, it’s about what’s possible. The study’s limitations are real, but so is the fact that it opened a door—however small—that challenges our understanding of aging. Saying it’s “partially true” feels like a cop-out. If we only ever validate what’s already known, we stop asking the hard questions. The real issue isn’t whether this one study is flawless, but whether we’re willing to entertain ideas that push the boundaries, even when the evidence is incomplete. The AI’s verdict is cautious, but caution shouldn’t silence curiosity.