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 look in this paper you can see both the Kaplan Meyer curves looking at the survival of people and especially those above 65 fare very poorly and the women look like they're faring even more poorly than the men in terms of increased rates of death as the cholesterol is decreased
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.
what happened was that in the people that had the seed oils in their diet their LDL went down but they died from cardiovascular disease more and there was actually an increased morbidity so they died earlier they died sooner and they had no protection from a cardiovascular perspective but their LDL went down
the Minnesota coronary survey I think is the best study we have regarding seed oils 1968 to 1973 a 4.5e followup 9,057 participants interestingly anel Keys was one of the original authors of this trial his group hid the results for 16 years possibly because the outcome was not what they expected but no one knows why they didn't publish this eventually Chris Ramson found the results of the Minnesota coronary trial and the Sydney diet heart study in the basement of one of the relatives of the people that was also involved in these trials and published both of these trials in the last 10 years the results of Minnesota coronary study those eating higher polyunsaturated fats had worse cardiovascular outcomes then the control group