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.
because zmi blocks cholesterol uptake it also may affect other fat soluble things and so there's a paper here where they basically discuss aetam affecting I think it was uh uh people using warr's uh values because it blocked the uptake of vitamin K
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.
so there's a paper here where they basically discuss aetam affecting I think it was uh uh people using warr's uh values because it blocked the uptake of vitamin K and so you Vitamin K is well this is really important for cardiovascular disease yeah because vitamin K prevents vascular calcification so if you don't if you're using a drug that may block that and lower your vitamin K status then then like long term you may increase your risk for vascular calcification overall which is a one of the primary end points for cardiovascular disease which is why you're looking at coronary artery calcification scores with a with with CT scans is you're trying to see where because the plaques EV become Cal calcified besides that the only that's the major risk I see with the aami