Peter Attia· MD
a hazard ratio of 2.2 okay well that's a that's a tricky one let's if we said 1.8 it would be an 80 increase 2.2 would be a hundred and twenty percent increase
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.
a hazard ratio of 2.2 okay well that's a that's a tricky one let's if we said 1.8 it would be an 80 increase 2.2 would be a hundred and twenty percent increase
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.
a hazard ratio is a number and you always subtract one from the hazard ratio and that tells you if it's a positive number if it's a number sorry if it's number greater than one you subtract one and that tells you the relative harm so if it has a ratio is 1.5 you subtract 1.5 is a 50 increase in Risk
if the number is negative you may recall on the banister paper the hazard ratio is 0.85 so if it's nothing so that means it's a 15 reduction in relative risk