It looks like, based on epidemiological data, cancer, heart disease for LT. What else? Dementia.
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
It looks like, based on epidemiological data, cancer, heart disease for LT. What else? Dementia.
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.
there were many benefits that that you know we see in metformin that go far beyond its uh glucose regulatory benefits they the obvious benefit that the diabetic patients get yeah no no n would be quite emphatic about disagreeing with me on this um I I'd love to be wrong about that but I just if I had to put my money it's just because most clinical trials fail and most clinical trials fail because they were based on Mouse data to start off with at least so maybe this is maybe this is something do it's certainly worth figuring out just because the effects are so manifold you know it's it's it's dementia and cancer and heart disease and we don't know what else
the observational evidence ignoring the banister paper just the observational the consistency of the observational data that it reduces dementia cancer cardiovascular disease suggest to me there's enough smoke there to look to see if there's if there's the keys article and then you can rethink that