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.
and you know for very high-risk patients we do refer them to Richard Isaacson's clinic at Cornell which is a dedicated high-risk clinic and certainly if the cognitive test warrants it they'll do lumbar punctures and start to look at CSF or other markers
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.
And for very high risk patients, we do refer them to Richard Isaacson's clinic at Cornell, which is a dedicated high risk clinic. And certainly there, if the cognitive test warrants it, they'll do lumbar punctures and start to look at CSF for other markers.