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.
they showed that you know when people randomized to this you know it sounds kitschy but like nanoparticles ooh that sounds cool nanoparticles can get through the blood-brain barrier well that sounds like in some ways marketing but then they did a study and like they had less you know amyloid accumulation so like okay sign me up like it's safe yes it has a cost to it but it's not astronomically expensive
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.
we tend to reserve theracumin for those higher risk patients versus curcumin for most people what's our belief for why theracumin there's been some reasonable data suggesting that despite the enormous increase in cost when you switch to theracumin it's worth the cost