Paul Saladino· MD
tmao is a bystander it's probably beneficial for humans and there's no evidence that it's causal
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.
tmao is a bystander it's probably beneficial for humans and there's no evidence that it's causal
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.
tmao as causal in cardiovascular disease is baloney it's baloney it's gefelt-a-fish right it's not true it's observational evidence that's confounded reverse causality means that because kidney disease and type 2 diabetes are comorbid with cardiovascular disease and those can raise tmao often you see those correlated but there is not one shred of evidence that tmao is causal of cardiovascular disease
our mendelian randomization findings support the type 2 diabetes and kidney disease increased tmao levels and observational evidence for cardiovascular diseases may be due to confounding or reverse causality