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.
45 percent of people had an LDL of 110 which was normal at the time we don't consider that normal anymore but 110 45 percent of people had — uh atherosclerosis and and then if you looked at people with LDL of 130 it went up to 58 and if you looked at LDL of 150 it was 65 64 which like almost 70 percent
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.
45 of people with an LDL of 110 which was normal at the time we don't consider that normal anymore but 110 45 percent of people had uh atherosclerosis and and then if you looked at people with LDL of 130 it went up to 58 and if you looked at LDL of 150 it was 65 64 which like almost 70 percent had subclinical uh atherosclerosis