Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
but that wouldn't necessarily imply causality because it would to have causality you would have to say removing amyloid because it is necessary though not sufficient removes the disease and as of yet to your point we don't really have evidence of amyloid reducing strategies working
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.
it's possible that um amlobita is necessary uh but that but but if it is necessary we don't have evidence that it is sufficient to cause um dementing processes there's been some some recent uh work in this area that that sort of I feel you know supports the idea that that maybe it may not even be necessary or sufficient