Thank you for your attention to what we published yesterday. And an even bigger thanks to all the skeptics. Nothing strengthens science like good skepticism. The Gravity Aging Hypothesis has far reaching implications, and there are limits to what we can do as a small team at Continue. More attention means more eyes on the hypothesis. My hope is that over the next few years we either prove it wrong, or build a strong enough body of evidence that it changes how we think about aging. Some of the skepticism we are seeing is based on an older picture of how the brain works, especially around autoregulation, and posture vs cerebral blood flow. In the last decade, data from brain perfusion studies, spaceflight, and autonomic disorders have shifted that picture in important ways. We have already explained a lot of what we found at continue.com/gravity. We have now also extracted answers to the most common misconceptions and contradictions in a separate document here, with citations — docs.google.com/document/d/1… Topics covered in this document: how autoregulation really works, living in space and the astronaut paradox, why this may have been overlooked, the kind of causal evidence we are chasing, and the clues around bats, height, and yoga. What we shared yesterday is a well researched hypothesis. To the best of our knowledge, it is consistent with what science currently knows, and it makes clear, testable predictions. We are not claiming that we have found a truth; we are merely claiming that there's something to look into here, and it might be significant. At Continue, we are running studies designed to both support and refute the hypothesis, without any confirmation bias. We even have a small contra team whose job is to try to prove the hypothesis wrong. Curious to see where the next few years of data take this idea, and very happy to have more constructive skepticism along for the ride.