Andrew Huberman· PhD
So ApoB is necessary, but not sufficient to develop ASCVD.
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So ApoB is necessary, but not sufficient to develop ASCVD.
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.
I do think it's probably sufficient in some cases right that interesting uh that in FH for example uh it's probably sufficient in other words I don't think you have to have something else uh to get AO in in cases where the aob is Sky High
I think it's absolutely necessary I think the data really do suggest that if it's bottomed out absence some really bizarre probably monogenic things that we don't see very often that you can't get out there sclerosis
my belief is that be you know and we we should obviously talk about this I think that the epidemiology the clinical trial data and the mandelian randomization to my reading of this l and I don't think there's anything I pay closer attention to truthfully is that apob is a necessary but not sufficient criteria for atherosclerosis and as such removing it removes atherosclerosis