We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Instead, we look at modifying 10-year risk. So that's the fundamental difference between what I call medicine 2.0 and medicine 3.0. Medicine 2.0, which is what we're generally practicing today, when it comes to ASCVD says, look, we will treat you, we will lower that LDL cholesterol, they still don't talk about ApoB, but that's a very American thing.
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.