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.
the thing is however that the assays that they were using were probably not the best they were certainly not as good as as they are today there was a lot of variability uh and a lot of these studies published in the 90s and in the uh in the early 2000s came out negative
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 hypothesis was that people with higher lpa levels uh were at the highest risk and it turned out not to be the case in many many uh of those studies uh and so we realized after afterwards that the assays that had been used were probably uh not very good
the hypothesis was that high lpa was associated with uh with cardiovascular events like uh myocardial infarction stroke etc so uh the hypothesis was that people with higher lpa levels uh were at the highest risk and it turned out not to be the case in many many uh of those studies
a lot of these studies published in the 90s and in the uh in the early 2000s came out negative so uh and that really uh was really tough uh for for the field because nobody talked about uh lpa at that moment
the assays that they were using were probably not the best they were certainly not as good as as they are today there was a lot of variability uh and a lot of these studies published in the '90s and in the uh in the early 2000 came out negative
the hypothesis was that people with higher LPA levels uh were at the highest risk and it turned out not to be the case in many many uh of those studies