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.
I think what Dave and I are both arguing is it doesn't make sense for it to be a concentration driven phenomenon there has to be a spark and the analogy that I like is that you can have dry wood but it's not going to ignite a fire unless you get a spark
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 mainstream the mainstream model essentially the um the the model of atherosclerosis that is promulgated by mainstream Western medicine and Cardiology in general is LDL is causal of atherosclerosis the apob containing particle is directly injurious to the endothelium therefore anything that raises your LDL regardless of your underlying metabolic health is a problem