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.
One client we had recently, he didn't know it. He didn't bring it up. He's never had leg or foot issues at all, but his testing, his calves, he's a big fall risk. His calves were crazy weak. His balance wasn't good because he didn't have strength. And he's definitely a high risk for an Achilles.
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.
And and if you were to handicap that, like how many years away would he have been from something like that being quite likely? Is this something that's gonna happen before he was 60? Yeah, he's he's definitely in that bucket of he could have been, you know, it's a little fear-mongering, but like he he he wasn't set up to like having to change direction quickly or maybe trips off a curb after dinner in New York, right? Like he could have had something like that easily, right?