Peter Attia· MD
So, if it's a young person and this is like the first time they're ovulating in their life, then yeah, we give them more time on a less invasive treatment, less expensive treatment.
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.
So, if it's a young person and this is like the first time they're ovulating in their life, then yeah, we give them more time on a less invasive treatment, less expensive treatment.
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.
And if someone who hasn't been ovulating, they haven't tried for a year even. They haven't even met the criteria for Exactly. So, there's nothing magic about 3 months, but that's, you know, at least a check-in point where we say, "Hey, do we continue doing this or do we move on to something else?" So, if it's a young person and this is like the first time they're ovulating in their life, then yeah, we give them more time on a less invasive treatment, less expensive treatment.
So, if it's a young person and this is like the first time they're ovulating in their life, then yeah, we give them more time on a less invasive treatment, less expensive treatment. Okay? If they're like 38, 40, uh, you know, we probably move on to something else.