The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
they first of all you had to have intact endothelium that if you don't have intact normal functioning endothelium you cannot have atherosclerosis they've gone in with catheters and scratched the endothelium and taken like ultrasound ivys ultrasound pictures of it at the end the the part that was damaged just scabbed over healed but next to it the fully intact normal part is the part that got the atherosclerosis
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.
the difference is they first of all you had to have intact endothelium that if you don't have intact normal functioning endothelium you cannot have atherosclerosis
So if the endothelium were impenetrable, atherosclerosis would not exist.