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 the you know they're all the different evidence that exists it will either tell you the TMAO you can't directly connect it or that it's just you know it's an association or biomarker of a disease state and not that the food that you're eating causing rays TMO is associated with increased heart disease so I think that at this point we can put the TMAO thing to bed
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.
The study that came out yesterday clearly showed and i can find you the reference or we can put in the show notes for people it showed that it's probably a reverse causality and what I hinted to at the beginning about the fact that the enzyme that makes TMAO and the liver is controlled by insulin what we are seeing here is a effect of the fact that people who are insulin resistant may have more TMAO but when there's more insulin there's more activity of FM o3 those people make more TMAO and it's not the tmao that's causing harm it's the insulin resistance
in the study they did there they were able to show that people with diabetes coronary vascular disease had higher levels of TMAO and the whole association was a reverse causality meaning EMA always higher because they have diabetes and cardiovascular disease it's not causing the problem