Peter Attia· MD
especially because now you know we have more data suggesting you know of duties of women who did become pregnant while on statins that did not show the teratogenic effects and so statins are probably not
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.
especially because now you know we have more data suggesting you know of duties of women who did become pregnant while on statins that did not show the teratogenic effects and so statins are probably not
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.
especially because now you know we have more data suggesting you know of duties of women who did become pregnant while on statins that did not show the teratogenic effects and so statins are probably not teratogenic you know we don't have a ton of data here which is why we still have some caution which most women who are planning a pregnancy you know we do generally still stop the statins during conception during pregnancy and during breastfeeding as shorter term interruptions is better than you know not treating them for decades and decades