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.
if apob causes atherosclerosis then why does your group with a very elevated LDL for an average of 4.7 years not have a statistically significant I would say marketly different greater plaque burden than an age match control from Miami Heart with lower amounts of LDL
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.
so the the C the coronary the CT coronary angiogram looks at both calcified and soft black there was some misunderstanding about this online apparently and you can be very sensitive so even the fact that you have Baseline data on these people now gives you how much plaque burden is there in a group of people with an average LDL of 272 milligrams per deciliter for an average of 4.7 years and you see some but when you when you compare that to an AG match control from Miami Heart it's there's no statistically significant difference
your group is actually trending lower not statistically significant but it's trending lower