SleepDoc_PDX said:

Lp(a) and cardiovascular risk: a nuance that matters.

Agreeing with SleepDoc_PDX, and the qualification matters more than the agreement. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.

SleepDoc_PDX said:

Lp(a) and cardiovascular risk: a nuance that matters.

That reframing is the part I needed. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.

Clinical perspective, offered as context rather than as advice. Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the correction. That is slower than asserting, and it is the only version that survives being wrong.

That is the short version; the long version is somebody else's post.

sophie_paris said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

Same experience, arrived at from the opposite direction. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.

sophie_paris said:

Whatever the answer turns out to be, the method for getting there is the same: state the assumption, do the arithmetic in public, and invite the…

Coming at sophie_paris’s question from a different direction. The honest answer is that the effect is real, the magnitude is contested, and the individual variation is larger than either. Those three things can all be true at once, and most arguments here are two people holding different parts of that.