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.
But I say what I convey to you today is that while stents may or may not be useful in some circumstances at reducing your symptoms, if you have bad symptoms, it's very unlikely that in stable angina they're going to do anything else.
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.
And so the result, which ended up splashed all over the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and every other you know news organization you could think of the the conclusion that was sort of reported to the general public was since not only do they not reduce your risk of having a heart attack or dying they don't even reduce your symptoms and so It became a sort of firestorm of conversation.