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.
the best example therefore parking stone and cancer and everything but Apple a prohi for yeah what's the we have to Apple II 400 years old people that the textbook would say they're demented at 70 and dead at 80 and they're not demented and not dead at home
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.
clearly this Gene is highly associated with Alzheimer's disease but as I've stated many times before including you know stated this obviously when we discussed this on Limitless this is not a deterministic gene so there are plenty of patients with apoe four one copy or even two who never go on to develop Dementia in fact as I think I write about briefly um in the book there are even centenarians walking around with e4s and meaning they're people who make it to 100 with no signs of dementia who are carrying e4s