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 the CT angiogram shows no evidence of calcification no evidence of soft plaque that means grossly their coronary arteries are still normal histologically they're probably not because nobody probably makes it to our age with histologically perfect coronary arteries
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.
if you want to be sure then we could do a CT anagram to kind of see how much plaque you actually have uh because you know I don't know any evidence that this calcification is not plaque related that it's somehow extravascular calcification or it's beyond the it's in the intima or something