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.
This drug was approved and it lowered cholesterol. Now today, no drug for ASCVD is approved on the basis of it lowering cholesterol. That's not a high enough bar. You have to reduce events. Actually have to show that you're preventing heart attacks and death. But at the time it was like, hey, it lowers cholesterol, it's got to be good. Well, in the late '60s it was pulled from the market because events were going up.
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.