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.
sir william mossler in in 1897 he published a paper that where he reviewed his previous 21 years of hospital experience this was so if you think about it this was 1876 to 1897 and he was aware of about six cases of angina the chest pain that might accompany coronary artery disease he had never seen a heart attack all right never seen a myocardial infarction
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.
13 years later in 1910 he spoke in london england at a con at a medical conference there and he uh described another between 1897 and 1910 in that 13-year period he was aware of an additional 208 cases of angina but yet he had still never seen a heart attack