Not quite. The actual article title is far more correct than either the clickbait headline or your headline:

"In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks of Progeria by Partial Reprogramming" (my addition)

But that is really hard to understand for a non-specialist. Means nothing at all for me.

Well, I'm quite sorry to hear that, but the paper was written for specialists, and its results are primarily interpretable by and relevant to specialists. Why exactly it made it into a press release and news articles is completely inexplicable when analyzed within the bounds of the work.

A popular science, or even general news type reviews of current research are very valuable. However, in the unavoidable simplifications, they do need to keep the main findings correct, not expand into outlandish claims for clickbait

I think the fact that the subjects suffer from Progeria (a syndrome that causes early ageing) is significant. There are other effects of ageing (such as damage to DNA in mitochondria from oxidative stress reducing a cell's ability to generate energy) that may not be displayed early alongside other symptoms of progeria and that this treatment would not do anything to alleviate.

I do not want to be too picky but I do not think the term gene therapy applies here. A gene therapy is when you give the organism a gene as a treatment, like giving a normal medicine. Here, the genes are included from the beginning and only activated like with normal medicine.

But very bad clickbait. The problems of media relying to eyeballs and ad clicks :)

Clickbait title to support the media business (marketing, journalist salaries), Hacker News for the summary.