Peter Attia· MD
he basically said don't agree with this observation — i mean agree with the observation don't agree with the interpretation is what he said
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.
he basically said don't agree with this observation — i mean agree with the observation don't agree with the interpretation is what he said
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.
winehouse as a more humble scientist
warburg has a really interesting tit for tat with um with with sydney winehouse in in science uh about a decade later i actually was able to pull up the article and and and read it they both wrote uh letters
you know winehouse challenges his belief that you know cancer cells have defective mitochondria he sees respirations running fine so there's more skepticism of warburg and people suspect him because of the nazi years
warburg's rebuttal was far less uh kind
but you know cellular respiration is basically there he said look there's no difference in oxygen consumption between these cells and there's no evidence that the mitochondria are damaged