Peter Attia· MD
but in 2006 a follow-up article said that that reported increased risk in that population had disappeared with continued follow-up and that article never made the headlines and most people aren't even aware of it
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.
but in 2006 a follow-up article said that that reported increased risk in that population had disappeared with continued follow-up and that article never made the headlines and most people aren't even aware of it
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.