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.
this was a composite of these factors so even though we're seeing a a change in dep from cardiovascular causes but it's compositive with non-fatal myocardial infarction so combined and non-fatal stroke and coronary vascularization into one metric which may hide if the death metric wasn't that great because it's you're combining it with these three other metrics
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 basically what we're seeing is an extremely small percent change mostly from non-fatal myocardial infarction non-fatal stroke and coronary vascularization in the bidic acid group and the percent difference is it's like a one point something percent difference and so the other thing is something to keep in mind is what type of statistic are they using and they're using a hazard ratio and Hazard ratios or odd ratios can really inflate some of the percent changes difference between the different groups as well depending on how the statistic is done
in the bidic acid group there is 11.7% of this primary end point and in the placebo group there was 13.3% so you're not seeing seeing a 1 Point some something percent change between the two groups so the effect is very small