Andrew Huberman· PhD
So if something comes back and it doesn't look great, yeah, it might make sense just to recheck it without reacting to it.
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.
So if something comes back and it doesn't look great, yeah, it might make sense just to recheck it without reacting to 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.
if I see one blood test and everything looks great which is a very blanket statement maybe I shouldn't believe that I should probably retest that in a few weeks to make sure but if I see a blood test which is more common and something's a little off I often think we'll just repeat it next week and some of the best data that I've gotten is when I can get blood work on a client or a patient every week for a month and then we have multiple data points
it's always better to get multiple sets of data with regard to the thyroid and all of your blood work indices