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 it's not a surrogate of particle our particle measurements april-b or LDL P so april-b is an LDL particle metric what too many people get lost there a VLDL particles are in April B particle so VOD LS are prime there's no doubt that vldls can get in the artery wall and contribute to it but it's like a minor the number of vldls that get into the artery wall are infinitesimal the number of kylos that get in are infinitesimal compared to the number of LDL particles
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.
there are some people who argue that vldl particles are more atherogenic than ldl particles and i think they've got a long way to go to prove that