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.
Stable angina was defined as you're exercising, you're increasing demand. So again, what we're talking about is an imbalance between myocardial oxygen supply and demand. So what used to be called stable angina, still mostly called stable angina, was thought to be a demand issue. So there would be a lesion that would narrow the artery and you'd only get chest pain when you increased demand.
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 the idea was that if you have this blockage that's 75, 80% of the diameter of your artery, and you go out and you do something that causes you to increase your demand. So you go walk up a flight of stairs or a hill here in San Francisco, You need to be able to deliver more oxygen to the tissue and you can't do that.