Peter Attia· MD
if you wanted to do this in a level one fashion you would actually have to randomize people to a whole bunch of different tobaccofree nicotine products and study the outcomes of interest
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.
if you wanted to do this in a level one fashion you would actually have to randomize people to a whole bunch of different tobaccofree nicotine products and study the outcomes of interest
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.
If you wanted to do this in a level one fashion, you would actually have to randomize people to a whole bunch of different tobaccofree nicotine products and study the outcomes of interest. Now, of course, nobody's going to do that for hard outcomes like mortality. Uh but I certainly think people could do that for softer outcomes.
I want to be clear, this is way, way far away from what you would want to be able to say as level one evidence, right? And if you wanted to do this in a level one fashion, you would actually have to randomize people to a whole bunch of different tobaccofree nicotine products and study the outcomes of interest.