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.
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 um because we know from autopsy studies of teenagers the process begins then
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.
so prevention really starts at 55 to 60. but half almost half of all infarcts and strokes occur before the age of 60.
that to me is a are the two fatal flaws in the 10-year risk approach