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.
and what people didn't realize that drug was the end of the HDL hypothesis because there was no effect on LDL no effect on apple b no effect on non-hdl but there was a 35 raising of HDL cholesterol and that did not translate into one less heart attack or stroke so that ended the HDL hypothesis in a way
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.
when I hear people tell me that their High HDL cholesterol is protecting them from coronary artery disease in the presence of high LDL cholesterol I have to restrain myself in the context of c-tep inhibitor failure number one two three four five six seven and mendelian randomizations that as you said completely fly in the face of this hypothetical belief system