[VernorVintage]

None of us are reading it right yet. We're not interpreting the "Hazard Ratios" - whatever those are. Until someone comes along and explains it (or uses chatGPT/bing to explain it), there's no point to form opinions about these results.

In addition, we need to know what percentage of the people were doing fasting, in order to determine if the HRs are statistically significant. That claim a 95% confidence ratio, but is that true?

If we're not able to do this kind of simple checkup on the data, we will just confuse us even more when we find another paper that adds even more naunce and complexity to the issue. That's how people become anti-science. Because we don't understand /this/ work, this work causes us cognitive dissonance. And because we don't understand this work, our dissonance is even worse next time.

I hope a kind statistician comes along and help our thread about by explaining the numbers and what they really mean in terms of death risk and life expectancy.