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.
there was another study actually that kind of lends more to this idea that the context is very important for lipoprotein little a and that was a study saying that see really increasing lipoprotein little a levels led to significantly higher risk of cardiovascular disease and they were tracking other markers too and the only thing it really came back to that it was tracking with was CRP which is which is a inflammatory marker
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.
but the problem is if you look at highlight for protein the delay its associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease so we need it low the end but it's not that simple it's not that simple because if you start looking at other contexts so there are markers like LP PLA 2 which is it's a marker found on lipoproteins that break down oxidative parts on there and if it's high above 700 with high LP little a you're in trouble that's high risk but then if you look at below 700 there's no increased risk no significant increased risk of high LP little a in that context