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.
are there immune markers we can perhaps measure in the blood and that's basically what we're doing right now so obviously these would be different types of inflammatory markers – and they're looking at other type of biomarkers that might signal this type of pathology going on
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.
subtle elevations of this C-reactive protein yeah you know those the rule is hey above two you're at worry above four you got some serious inflammation in your body going on it's not necessarily cardiovascular but you know could you be in an early stage of some other inflammatory disease sure that's why it's not specific but you know we look at levels even less than two as a signal to us to start worrying