Paul Saladino· MD
more than 50% avoided a fatal heart attack but the reason that they they're saying this is based on really weak statistical evidence that's not looking at at it's looking at a a relative risk instead of absolute risk
Loading…
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.
more than 50% avoided a fatal heart attack but the reason that they they're saying this is based on really weak statistical evidence that's not looking at at it's looking at a a relative risk instead of absolute risk
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.