Peter Attia· MD
so the you know the way that we now read scans the low-dose ct scans is different than what the initial study did um because of a high risk of false positives if the way that they was doing the original study
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 the you know the way that we now read scans the low-dose ct scans is different than what the initial study did um because of a high risk of false positives if the way that they was doing the original study
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.