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.
you've had an LDL size of 22.3 I guess it depends what size we're looking at this has 2223 angstroms yeah angstrom it's move the decimal place to get the manometers the denominators right and they characterize that as a pattern size a so that's an it's an LDL that's a reasonable size part
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.
my ldl was massive i think it was 24.7 nanometers which is a huge particle of ldl it's like almost out of the reference room it's like such a big part of the ldl a large ldl particle would be like 22 to 23 nanometers almost 24.7 nominals
the ldl particles this is actually a number in animal per liter this is counting the number of particles rather than this ldl number which is milligrams per deciliter the 164 versus 1925 ldl particles again it's going to be high because i have high quote-unquote ldl milligrams per deciliter i don't care my ldl phenotype is pattern a i want to talk about that as well in a moment but that means that the majority of my particles are large and buoyant
i have a lot of ldl particles because i have a lot of ldl they're big ldl and so big ldl gives you a large ldl milligram per deciliter number but i still have a lot of ldl particles because that number was so big