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 leads to under treatment and particularly you know I see this with women who have FH familial hypocholesterolemia who are under treated because on average in the non-fh population women tend to develop cardiovascular disease about 10 years later than men
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.
it's better to even have short interruptions in treatment than to let these women who have genetically High very high ldls be marinating in this athergenesis for decades and decades untreated