Peter Attia· MD
it decreased amous Andis by about 80% because the test is so so sensitive and specific um as a screen that um you know many many women have now you know not had to undergo you know amniocentesis and and the risks around them
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 decreased amous Andis by about 80% because the test is so so sensitive and specific um as a screen that um you know many many women have now you know not had to undergo you know amniocentesis and and the risks around them
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.
this ended up being an incredibly um sensitive and specific way to test for you know uh the presence of tromis you know chromosome 211 18113 early uh in in pregnancy
you could see fetal DNA in the blood or more specifically placental DNA uh in the blood and it was also cell-free DNA and um what he developed actually along with um uh you know one of our professors at at Stanford Steve Quake was a technique to look for tromis In The Blood based on this placental or fetal DNA and this is called non-invasive prenatal testing