Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
over 65 arguably you may reduce the burden of disease but you may increase longevity which as we know creates additional cost over time because it's kind of unknown whether you can stay on these drugs or whether people will stay on the drugs above 70 80 into their 90s and will there be a reversion in other words are you just delaying the spend or are you actually avoiding the spend we don't know
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.