Peter Attia· MD
wow a lot of smart well-intentioned people who really have plausible pathophysiology who have a compelling retrospective observational story they can be wrong
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.
wow a lot of smart well-intentioned people who really have plausible pathophysiology who have a compelling retrospective observational story they can be wrong
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.