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.
I describe primary prevention as treatment when there is not a single discernible sign of disease whereas I would call secondary prevention if you have a calcium score of five we're already in secondary prevention even though you you haven't had an event or if there are abnormalities on a CTA of course that's right no I completely agree with you
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.