Paul Saladino· MD
These are not studies that are looking at interventions. They're They're just They're looking at genetics, and they're looking at the association of certain genetic phenotypes.
Loading…
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
These are not studies that are looking at interventions. They're They're just They're looking at genetics, and they're looking at the association of certain genetic phenotypes.
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.
These GWAS, these Mendelian randomizations, which form the foundation of the apoB argument, are inherently flawed.