Peter Attia· MD
it still gives you even more confidence that this is something that people should take seriously even at a young age even if it's not going to kill them in a year
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.
it still gives you even more confidence that this is something that people should take seriously even at a young age even if it's not going to kill them in a year
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.
the percentage that we saw in this trial over the one two and three year mark you kind of mentioned that that can compound over a lifetime and so if you saw that much of a difference in a short period of time it only gives you more confidence because the reality is if someone goes with high blood pressure for most of their life untreated you're not looking at only three years you could be looking at from 35 to 75 you could be looking at four years and obviously you can't run a 40-year trial