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.
so anytime I see somebody who has a high calcium score test in their 40s or they've already had an event unfortunately I'm always looking at that first because you know now if you're guessing by stats one in five of those people are going to have a high level
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's other people that have excessively High LPA and they don't have you know events they don't have high calcium scores or ctngios