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.
again this is to dispel the notion that cardiovascular disease is an old person disease because I don't think most people would consider someone who's 60 years old to be old by today's standards and even in women to your point who have this time shift of about one decade still one-third of women who will experience a major adverse cardiac event in their life will do so before the age of 65.
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.
the data basically suggested that if you consider all the people who are going to suffer a major adverse cardiac event in their life and you consider men and ask the question what fraction of men will experience their first event of The Men Who experience a major adverse cardiac event in life what fraction will experience it before the age of 65 the answer was fully half
50% of them will experience their first event before the age of 65 and 33% of women in the same boat will experience their first event before the age of 65