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.
the young patient who has a positive calcium score really that's a for alarm fire regardless of the apob right so if you're if you're under 50 and you have a speck of calcium in your coronary arteries even if it's a low enough spec that it would predict a 10year risk of 4% that's still utterly unacceptable
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.
But if I have an individual who's 40 years old who has perfectly pristine coronary arteries and is walking around with an APO of 60 milligrams per deciliter, I don't think you need to do a thing. I think they're just fine.