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.
uh one of the things PS that you mentioned that I would like to elaborate on is that the body increases the amount of LDL in the setting of an infection it is doing it on purpose the liver starts elaborating uh pcsk9 that comes in and removes the LDL receptor from the liver so that the amount of LDL goes up in the circulation and the reason for that is that that LDL is being ready to dampen an infection to reduce inflammation
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.
in other words biologically the pcsk9 is an acute phase reactant what that means is that it goes up in the setting of infection and inflammation the reason it's doing that is because it says I need LDL to remain in circulation I'm going to downregulate The receptors in in which I pick up the LDL and cholesterol so that more LDL remains in circulation and at the same time it is giving signals to the body to increase the locks receptors The receptors that are designed to take away the injured LDL