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.
there's this like golf uh in between where different people have vastly different amounts of these proteins and they have very different cognitive outcomes or you know long-term cognitive trajectories and the two almost don't correlate at all
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 brains of these people who were cognitively normal after they died they couldn't differentiate them from they ones that were diagnosis Alzheimer's based on amyloid and never fillory tangle depositions