Peter Attia· MD
When you have a one per 1.7 percent um absolute risk reduction that means your number needed to treat to prevent a negative a bad out a bad outcome is very low I mean we're talking about what 60 for an nnt
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.
When you have a one per 1.7 percent um absolute risk reduction that means your number needed to treat to prevent a negative a bad out a bad outcome is very low I mean we're talking about what 60 for an nnt
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.