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're trying to remove amyloid it's the same thing you know to try and treat Alzheimer's diseases the same thing as trying to uh revive somebody uh from the dead by removing their Tombstone um that's that's essentially what it is the the plaque is the tombstone of a previous neuron that failed uh its ability to process protein and then left this in its place
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.
that's a very Stark concept right that's a very strong concept because it implies that amyloid is an absolute marker for something horrible just as walking through a town and seeing lots of tombstones tells you if they occurred over a short enough period of time something bad happened in this town but removing the Tombstones does nothing to erase what just happened in that town