The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
The soft plaques eventually may become hard plaques. The hard plaques are generally more stable, they're not necessarily going to cause heart attacks. They can cause angina if you get a severe, you know, uh stenosis, you know, generally greater than 70%, but this is ongoing cascade that happens.
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.
actually calcified plaques generally are considered protective or not likely to rupture but it does mean when you have a counseling score that's positive that you also have tons of soft plaque that hasn't yet calcified but it's the soft plaque that's going to cause you know about 80 percent of heart attacks
So, you hear about a calcium score, and people go, "Oh, my God, I've got 1000 calcium score." Well, that's okay because a high calcium score means that the plaque in your coronary arteries have been calcified and they're unlikely to rupture.