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.
the debate is not whether ldl or apob containing particles get pulled into atherosclerotic plaques the debate is whether they initiate those plaques on their own de novo in which case if ldl itself does not possess a little sword that it goes around creating all this havoc with then having a bunch of ldl might not be a bad thing if a very small amount of it is oxidized and that's the hypothesis that i and many others are operating from with regard to the ldl
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.
you have a fire in a building firemen show up the firemen are there to put the fire out right the arsonist is the person who started the fire so just because something arrives at an injury in the human body doesn't mean that it's the cause of that injury