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.
So, I think uh and I don't think they've done this yet is that inclusion criteria should be patients that uh present with remarkable glucose hypom metabolism. So, I think that's that's really an important key uh because I mean we know there's people who have brains that are chuck full of amaloid that have are completely sharp and are completely normal.
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.
So, I think uh and I don't think they've done this yet is that inclusion criteria should be patients that uh present with remarkable glucose hypom metabolism.
So, I think >> and I don't think they've done this yet is that inclusion criteria should be patients that >> present with remarkable glucose hypom metabolism.