We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
to sit there and wait until someone has a major adverse cardiac event to say that they had coronary artery disease is nonsensical i would go one step further and say and you know waiting until a person's 10-year risk exceeds 5 percent to intervene is equally nonsensical yet that is still largely the standard
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.
are the two fatal flaws in the 10-year risk approach
this is a big pet peeve of mine is we generally talk about cardiovascular disease through the lens of 10year risk which I think is ridiculous we should talk about lifetime risk but I would settle for 30year risk frankly