Paul Saladino· MD
it is not the marker itself that confers the risk but it is what's causing it to move that can confer 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.
it is not the marker itself that confers the risk but it is what's causing it to move that can confer 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.
they can be linked to diet or they can be linked to inflammation and insulin resistance and never the twain shall meet and those are not the same thing
This is the pattern we see over and over and over is that things get called yeah problematic when in fact it's the underlying insulin resistance that we know is the problem and if that's the case with TMAO so it's reverse it's reverse causality