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.
fast forward to 2016 so call it 67 years later I went and had a CT angiogram and a calcium scan and the calcium scan had a score of zero the CT angiogram which now is at much finer resolution indeed found a tiny Speck of calcium in the proximal l no other finding
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 the calcium score came out as two and the CT angiogram was identical to what it was in 2016 6 years earlier