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.
Why would we not want to lower APOB? What are the downsides of potentially lowering cholesterol? Because if I can die of cardiovascular disease less, like I'm going to push it as low as I can. Yeah. And again, that question doesn't get asked, but we have some concerning evidence here again.
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 right now, there is a growing I think it's grown a lot, but there is a growing fear or sort of zeitgeist around Apo which is similar to LDLC as low as possible.
for example we might look at an intervention that lowers apob significantly and say well you know is that a decent enough proxy for the fact that this might also reduce cardiovascular mortality