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.
he had one of these scans done and he had soft black and he's like you know how do I have soft plaque and he was saying he called the medical director of the company and they're like you know it's actually a very very sensitive test and you do see that people will have soft plaque
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.
I had no Advanced calcified bad plaque I had a calcium score of zero
what may happen in that is they may have some soft plaque because mostly every human on the planet does because I might be repairing the arteries it's like at what point does the test become too sensitive you know what I mean
there are other times when even if it is zero I still reflux into a coronary angiogram so a CT angiogram which does pull much more anatomic detail including the presence of soft plaque