We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
I think that's a huge Pro risk profile with this drug to stop those Pathways in the liver and then also not really have a huge change in all cause mortality and a marginal change in cardiovascular benefits like what's what's I don't I'm not seeing the huge value here
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.
the mevalonate pathway is important for producing things like he a co-enzyme q saleno proteins and vitamin K and so hea is important for hemoglobin for all the mitoch a variety of mitochondrial proteins co-enzyme Q is important for the mitochondria and then the selenop proteins are important for antioxid defense like glutathion peroxidase or thyroid function like the Dion enzymes so if you start nuking out this whole pathway in the liver where you're having some of these things produced is there going to be a long-term side effect profile in the liver with some because you don't you're not able
if you start nuking out this whole pathway in the liver where you're having some of these things produced is there going to be a long-term side effect profile in the liver with some because you don't you're not able to produce these necessary and important uh proteins because you're missing a key component