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.
it is typically not something that we check for in a routine day-to-day clinical care for a couple of reasons one is it's not diagnostic right so you can have e4 e4 and not have alzheimer's or you can have e2 e3 which might be protective and still have alzheimer's so it really just makes people worry
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.