2 thoughts on “Twitter juxtaposition of the day

  1. Unless there’s another article that andrewphelps is referring to, or the online version has been tweaked from the print version, I don’t think you can call the NYT coverage irresponsible – this qualifier-laden verbiage is the second paragraph:

    “When it becomes affordable to have one’s genome sequenced, perhaps in a few years, a longevity test, though not a foolproof one, may be feasible, if a new claim holds up. Scientists studying the genomes of centenarians in New England say they have identified a set of genetic variants that predicts extreme longevity with 77 percent accuracy.”

    If bets were hedged any further, the thing would be unreadable!

Comments are closed.