I'm not arguing with their methods but I think there is an alternative explanation to their data: naked mole rats might still have gompertzian aging but with an

I'm not arguing with their methods but I think there is an alternative explanation to their data: naked mole rats might still have gompertzian aging but with an exponent that is low enough to not show up at the age of 30 or so. Humans also don't display any signs of biological aging up to the age of 30, but around 70 everything starts to fall apart. My point is, until we have a decent sample size of 70+-year-old naked mole rats, we won't know.