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.
we know from autopsy studies of teenagers the process begins then i mean it probably begins even younger but we don't have too many autopsies of people below the teen years but certainly autopsies of people in their late teens and early 20s who have died for other reasons um already show foam cells fatty streaks in some cases
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.
for the first three decades or so of life the disease begins gets a foothold in the artery but it's only in the fourth decade that you start to develop the lesions that can actually precipitate a clinical event
this is largely viewed as a a disease of the elderly um does that give us any insight into the time Horizon of this disease or the pathophysiology I think it clearly does so if the deposition of cholesterol is the problem you don't if you ran to your doctor tomorrow and got your cholesterol checked uh uh checked and it's very high you don't have to rush out to see a cardiologist uh to check your arteries that day because it takes a long long time for this cholesterol deposition to occur