Peter Attia· MD
we have the same level of causality for APO B there is no ambiguity about this and yet we somehow have this double standard where we ignore the causal agent
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.
we have the same level of causality for APO B there is no ambiguity about this and yet we somehow have this double standard where we ignore the causal agent
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.
but apob is causally related and that's why reducing APO B reduces events it's necessary but not sufficient
So if you believe that APOB is causal, then you treat it regardless.
So if you believe that APOB is causal, then you treat it regardless.
the reason you treat causal risk factors um is not because you are sure that this person is going to get ASCBD, but because you understand that by treating something that's causal, you reduce the risk.
So if you believe that APOB is causal, then you treat it regardless.