Peter Attia· MD
to which my interpretation was maybe you were just underpowered to detect a difference in the Nani force but because the ephors come with another risk you didn't need that many women to see the benefit
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.
to which my interpretation was maybe you were just underpowered to detect a difference in the Nani force but because the ephors come with another risk you didn't need that many women to see the benefit
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 was an interesting paper Richard about three years ago it was a very small paper I don't even remember how many women were in it but I remember it was surprisingly small and it was if I recall also heterogeneous in a pony type and it asked the question if took these women who were either perimenopausal or early menopausal and you treated them with HRT did you improve cognitive performance if I believe the result of that study was you did only in the woman that had an e4 gene but not on the woman that did not
For symptomatic perimenopausal women under 60, hormone replacement therapy reduces all-cause mortality.
The breast-cancer risk attributed to HRT in the original WHI trial was overstated and the timing window matters most.