The broader ‘reverses biological aging’ claim is the marketing-facing extension of the specific epigenetic-clock findings. It interprets the surrogate-endpoint reductions (most pronounced in the immune and inflammatory Systems Age domains, with reported reductions of 9.7 years and 7.1 years respectively) as evidence of underlying biological rejuvenation rather than as evidence of changes on a panel of surrogate measures. The two interpretations are not equivalent: epigenetic-clock changes have been validated against chronological age and against population-level mortality, but have not been demonstrated as causal mediators of mortality or disease incidence at the individual level. The broader claim therefore goes beyond what the trial data formally support and is the principal subject of critical commentary in the apheresis and aging-medicine literature.