Peter Attia· MD
Now again the confidence intervals on this were very large because the sample size was very small. [...] I believe was like6 to uh 37. [...] so not statistically significant either.
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.
Now again the confidence intervals on this were very large because the sample size was very small. [...] I believe was like6 to uh 37. [...] so not statistically significant either.
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.
So the rose corn oil trial has the largest hazard ratio of any trial ever done. [laughter] >> It is sorry of this trial of of this of these trials it was 4.64 >> right? What that means is there was a 364% increase in risk if you took corn oil, but it did not reach anywhere near statistical significance to your point because the hazard ratio confidence interval, the 95% confidence interval was 0.58 to 37.15.