Peter Attia· MD
and the goal is is to understand okay if they have a four we're gonna do a B and C if they don't have a four we're gonna do XY and Z
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.
and the goal is is to understand okay if they have a four we're gonna do a B and C if they don't have a four we're gonna do XY and Z
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.
there are a bunch of other genes that we're now starting to understand modify the risk of e4 some things make it more significant some things make it less so
now we are looking at patients who have e4 e4 and they don't have not only do they not have alzheimer's disease more importantly they don't have any of the early signs of it based on really really advanced cognitive testing that that shows very subtle signs decades before and we're starting to look at other genes that are abrogating some of the effects of this