The AI verdict is correct because it doesn’t just evaluate the data—it evaluates the *weight* of that data in the real world. Science isn’t just about what’s possible; it’s about what’s *reliable*. A single study, even if it shows something interesting, doesn’t overturn decades of biological understanding. The fact that the lead researcher has a financial stake in the treatment, and that no one else has replicated the results, means the claim isn’t just unproven—it’s not even close to being established. The verdict doesn’t dismiss the possibility of telomere lengthening, but it rightly points out that the jump to "20-year age difference" is a stretch. That’s not skepticism—it’s responsible evaluation.