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.
this is a prospective cohort study it didn't have a lot of people and had 48 thousand and 188 participants with no history of ischemic heart disease stroke or chest pain which is angina right and so what they do is they take those people that's how many people they ended with they probably started with more you take those people and they give them a survey or you actually send me the surveys really once a year
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.