Peter Attia· MD
there are different decades that are predictive so if it's just one global subjective bias in your questioner that you shouldn't see that result so there is a sensitivity and specificity to these two different proteins
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
there are different decades that are predictive so if it's just one global subjective bias in your questioner that you shouldn't see that result so there is a sensitivity and specificity to these two different proteins
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.
What we're now trying to do in our studies is actually retrospectively find out, is there a particular decade of life or decades of life when a decline in sleep makes you most susceptible to then developing a lot more amyloid later in life? In other words, we're trying to now identify these vulnerability windows during the lifespan.