Peter Attia· MD
If you're 50 versus 60 versus 70, you leapfrog up in risk, right? Almost exponentially, or at least quadratically.
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.
If you're 50 versus 60 versus 70, you leapfrog up in risk, right? Almost exponentially, or at least quadratically.
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.
cancer rates rise monotonically until the ninth decade or so. I mean, there's a bimodal distribution because you've got the childhood cancers.