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.
And he looked at their M1 to M2 ratios, essentially inflammation to resolution, he saw two patterns. The people who don't eat the amyloid and who have the cognitive decline either have a pro-inflammatory state where they have a lot of M1 and very little M2 or he found that they literally had an atrophic state, the same thing we saw as type 2, where they simply could not produce enough of this to resolve.
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, in fact, getting the right levels, about two-and-a-half to one, was associated with the best outcomes.