Peter Attia· MD
so not surprisingly As you move down the rows the numbers get bigger
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.
so not surprisingly As you move down the rows the numbers get bigger
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 final column is just 10-year risk of all dementias so that would include Alzheimer's plus vascular plus Lewy Body Etc frontal you know Etc so I think that's the first way to orient then if you go by rows you're just looking at the decade in which we look so the top row is people in their 60s the next row is people in their 70s the final row is people 80 and up so not surprisingly As you move down the rows the numbers get bigger and not surprisingly the third column has to be greater than the sum of the first two columns because it includes both of them plus other things