Peter Attia· MD
so particle number is certainly a major factor that might force it in but not always
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.
so particle number is certainly a major factor that might force it in but not always
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 particle number is certainly a major factor that might force it in but not always and the daily of function although you can certainly if you review the history of this and how do you really determine endothelial function not everybody has serious endothelial dysfunction who winds up with atherosclerosal particle number itself and some people can just make the particles go in I think if we take most adults who's not going to have a little bit of endothelial dysfunction so I agree with you it's a combination of something about atherogenic particles be it their number and the daily dysfunction