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.
you know it was at one part of their heart and that doesn't really tell me anything like the fact that they have a score of you know whatever 15 at one part of their left anterior descending really means nothing about what's happening there but that becomes now a real global alarm to me that given that person's age which is early 40s if they have a calcified if they have a calcified point right there they undoubtedly have atherosclerosis elsewhere
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.