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.
now alzheimer's disease and drugs don't have a great marriage they don't have a great track record the way cardiovascular disease does and even though oncology is not you know great far from perfect uh oncology even has a better track record than alzheimer's disease
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.
there is no disease that has a worse track record relative to the inputs uh on the output side in other words there were you know there are orphan diseases for which we have no drugs right but there have been few shots on goal so the ratio of shots on goals shots on goal to goals is lower in alzheimer's disease than probably not probably unquestionably any other disease