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.
and in the past and we'll talk about why have so many Alzheimer's drugs failed why studies left-and-right failure failure failure there was one study that you know this is only like five or six years ago before the era of biome markers there was one study where 40% of the people with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in the study did not have amyloid in the brain
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.
the clinical diagnosis isn't always correct so that's why we need to think about biomarkers in certain situations
there was one study where 40% of the people with a clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease in the study did not have amyloid in the brain but they were getting anti-amyloid treatments