Peter Attia· MD
I think that with a good history interactive history and certain questions and a good physical exam I can be about 95 accurate in making a diagnosis without an MRI without a CT scan without even X-rays
Loading…
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.
I think that with a good history interactive history and certain questions and a good physical exam I can be about 95 accurate in making a diagnosis without an MRI without a CT scan without even X-rays
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.
so as we were talking about a minute ago about uh the shoulder I think that with a good history interactive history and certain questions and a good physical exam I can be about 95% accurate in making a diagnosis without an MRI without a CT scan without even x-rays
I think that with a good history interactive history and certain questions and a good physical exam I can be about 95 accurate in making a diagnosis without an MRI without a CT scan without even X-rays