A little bit? It does say that many _could_ be committing, e.g., pension fraud, but that the primary issue is with the data, and the reliance on documents as th

A little bit? It does say that many _could_ be committing, e.g., pension fraud, but that the primary issue is with the data, and the reliance on documents as the "source of truth" of these claims, and this seems to accurately sum it up: > This issue presents a substantial problem for remarkable-age databases, embodied in a deliberately provocative, if seemingly absurd, hypothesis: "Every ‘supercentenarian’ is an accidental or intentional identity thief, who owns real and validated 110+ year-old documents, and is passably good at their job." > This hypothesis cannot be invalidated by the further scrutiny of documents, or by models calibrated using document-informed ages. Rather, invalidating this hypothesis requires a fundamental shift: it requires the measurement of biological ages from fundamental physical properties, such as amino acid chirality or isotopic decay. > Until such document-independent validation of remarkable ages occurs, the type I error rate of remarkable human age samples will remain unknown, and the validity of ‘supercentenarian’ data in question.