Peter Attia· MD
just because of the way that the protocol was written we ended up having to exclude about 20% of dogs because they had underlying heart disease
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.
just because of the way that the protocol was written we ended up having to exclude about 20% of dogs because they had underlying heart disease
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.
one thing we we found though that was unexpected was that about 20% of dogs and that age and weight range actually have asymptomatic heart disease that you will see if you give them an echocardiogram but you won't detect from a stethoscope exam
if a vet with the stethoscope takes a heart murmur and then they give the dog an echocardiogram and they see regurgitation they'll call that heart disease if they don't hear a heart murmur nobody's gonna give their dog an echocardiogram right it's expensive yeah and so I'm not a cardiologist but I can't imagine the day would ever come we're using a stethoscope I could detect you know a low EF like to the tone of right yeah I mean unless you would not get that no no it's really the regurgitation their hearing is as a heart murmur and and that was most of most of the dogs that we ended up having to exclude we had to exclude because they had a pre-existing education that came out from the echocardiogram