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.
as you have an evolving plaque it gets bigger and bigger and it becomes prone to erosion or rupture and the coagulation system so there's nothing to say that even in a minuscule histologic rupture of a plaque that the vase of storm can't be contributing some clotting factors or something else to that pathological process
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 almost assuredly does at some point once you have damage i would fully expect coagulation factors to be coming from both sides the luminal side and the vasovasarum side