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.
if you're in post hoc analysis they did reduce ischemic events in that trial what is that am I so M eyes went down and Jonah went down but that's post hoc got lucky in power for that no they may or may not be legit correct so you'd have to do another whole trial to do that again so but they were hoping to speak by without doing
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.
in Merck did two big outcome trials where they could use you didn't necessarily have to give a patient a statin they took people with significant a or text enosis and well the belief because haters calcium and his cholesterol in those aortic valves that if we could lower cholesterol in people with aortic stenosis Reed reproduce morbidity related to that and we don't have to give him a statin cuz statins failed to reduce outcomes in people with aortic Stowe's trials were already done so they took the C's trial he ordered stenosis ezetimibe and lowered it and guess wha did nothing to end points related cuz they're enrolling people that kind of stuff just it breaks my heart it doesn't anger me it breaks