Peter Attia· MD
the purpose of this trial was really to ask the question what is the benefit of per lack of a better word aggressive blood pressure control
Loading…
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.
the purpose of this trial was really to ask the question what is the benefit of per lack of a better word aggressive blood pressure control
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.
this was not a Pharma sponsor sponsored trial this is an NIH sponsored trial the government sponsored trial and was agnostic to different agents right I mean it was not about the the Physicians who enrolled patients in the trial had had access to almost any therapy during that trial so this was not about sort of proving the the benefit of one drug over another this was purely about testing the hypothesis that getting as close to 120 over 80 rather than letting people sort of float up to 140 over 90 was better or not and it turned out that it was with caveat