Peter Attia· MD
Unilver and all the advertisements would talk about the benefits you got from using soap that if you used soap disease would go down. That was not influential, right? It's it's just like talking because it was too abstract.
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.
Unilver and all the advertisements would talk about the benefits you got from using soap that if you used soap disease would go down. That was not influential, right? It's it's just like talking because it was too abstract.
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 so what they did is they actually changed the scent of the soaps. They actually made the scent of the soaps less powerful because it seemed less like a perfume, less like a fancy thing. And then what they would do is they ran these ads where they equated washing your hands with taking care of your children. Not necessarily your own health, not your own cleanliness, but when I wash my hands with soap, I can feed my children. And so I'm creating that sense, that identity reward that says by doing this, you're a good parent. And that changed everything.