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.
my guess is in younger people who die of heart attack suddenly that often times it's a sort of relatively mild plaque that wouldn't trigger any discussion of revascularization um and you know wouldn't make anybody nervous at all that those are the plaques that end up causing problems
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.
that often times the plaques that ruptured and led to sudden cardiac death were the smaller plaques the 30% plaques which kind of makes sense in in the context of how we think about you know we'll all hear these stories