We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
the only thing I'll say about oxidized LDL for people is that in my opinion the tests we have now for oxidized LDL are flawed and because they are antibody based assays they really just track with LDL particle number so I actually don't recommend people do oxidized LDL testing right now
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.
i don't think that this will work given it's a pass fail model it's a boolean model correct in other words if you're if you're a lipoprotein let's say at its minimal level that's detectable it could detect say three oxidized phospholipids on your ldl particle uh that's it's that's its floor it's going to treat that as exactly the same as if you have 30 oxidized phospholipids on your ldl particle they're both the same right
99 of the oxidized ldl tests are not really valid because the one from cleveland heart lab is a true false it's a boolean test which is really only going to tell you if an ldl particle an ldl sphere a phospholipid has an a certain threshold of phospholipids that are oxidized that will be a positive