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.
the way we can deal with this and what we've done is develop what's called the causal benefit model is we measure non-hdl or apob and and we can project the risk over 20 or 30 years if you're 30 years old the period of time you should care about is up to age at least to 60.
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 practice medicine a very different way because i have a very different goal right i have a i have an objective for how long a person might be able to live disease free and i also tend to be influenced by people like you who have taught me how long it takes for this disease to take hold so the analogy i would use is imagine there was a calculator that told you you know how much money you should be saving for retirement but it could only predict 10 years into the future it wouldn't be a very useful tool because a 30 year old isn't going to be retired in 10 years so how has your thinking which has influenced me greatly how did you come to the 30-year model that is based on the causal relationship and what what are the types of yields that we see there
the way we can deal with this and what we've done is develop What's called the causal benefit model we measure it non-hl or apob and we can project the risk over 20 or 30 years