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.
if that person has a perfect CT angiogram I'm going to push less hard than if they have a devastating angiogram and by the way devastating in my book is just any amount of calcification or soft plaque anything that shows up grossly that you can see on a CT scan means that you've got a decade plus of really bad histology building up to it
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.