Peter Attia· MD
well it's pro-athogenic pro-inflammatory and pro thrombotic and it's associated with cardiovascular risk and as likely for mendelial randomization studies you know causally related to both as CBD as well as calcific stenosis
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.
well it's pro-athogenic pro-inflammatory and pro thrombotic and it's associated with cardiovascular risk and as likely for mendelial randomization studies you know causally related to both as CBD as well as calcific stenosis
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.