Peter Attia· MD
The approximate prevalence the three threes represent probably what about 55 60 percent yeah you got a neutral risk so we call that unity risk
Loading…
The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
The approximate prevalence the three threes represent probably what about 55 60 percent yeah you got a neutral risk so we call that unity risk
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the problem is is when someone comes in with a three-three I'm like oh meaning for a three-three to show up in your clinic by definition there's a reason either their family member had premature Alzheimer's disease and/or they're potentially even showing early signs of cognitive impairment that are subtle or no no I mean you know we were a prevention clinic so to get into our clinic you have to have normal cognitive function with a family history of Alzheimer's so so we focus on the normals now a33 could mean you did not get the four from mom or dad and life is beautiful maybe the risk is lower but if you have a three three and mom and dad were three three and they didn't have the four guess what they probably have another gene and I don't know what that gene is and I don't know what I'm up because you test the parents in that situation well it's tricky
Because there's clearly something going on, and I don't even know what it is.