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.
it's hard to dispute that there was a real increase in pulmonary embolism and venous thromboembolism you alluded to it already because you talked about platelet activation let's put it in context can we talk about the magnitude so we saw the increase was clear and relative how big was the absolute increase it's very small
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.
The incidence is small I I don't have the number in my hand it's it's significant enough that if the patient is has a condition or is taking something that can predispose to that kind of Claudette must be a consideration before somebody starts on hormones