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 fibrates helped eliminate HDL particles so if you're any ol school a hey you're increasing reverse cholesterol transport because the fibrates up regulate the scavenger receptor be one which we clip and hit your HDL so of course your HCL's would become smaller
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.
as the theory goes and I'll just remind you about our example with srb1 that's the terminal sort of one of the terminal steps where the HDL is dumping off the cholesterol if you interrupt that process your HDL goes up but the process of reverse cholesterol transport is being constipated and therefore there's increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease
so there are humans who lack srb1 what do you think the problem is very high they have very high hdls they have very high age deals because they can't unload the dump trucks but they actually have increased risk of heart disease because they are not efficiently unloading that HDL