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.
actually cardiovascular disease and neurodegenerative disease seem to get they flatlined by the end so meaning there was no benefit to being at the hundredth percentile or the 99th percentile versus the 80th versus the 70th but you weren't getting penalized for it
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's a u-shaped mortality curve that is skewed to the right for IGF and all cause mortality cancer mortality cardiovascular mortality and neurodegenerative mortality but when you uncouple them by disease you see a very interesting pattern so all cause mortality as IGF goes up it actually starts to go down it Nader's at the 70th percentile and then it starts to rise but it doesn't get as high as it started