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.
I mean our lib answer is to say no no no no especially with a non-contrast like if there's I mean not that the risk of gadolinium is high but if you're just having a dry MRI you say nothing nothing nothing but I actually had a patient who had very very very severe migraine headaches and she actually had a migraine triggered by an MRI and I truly believe that wasn't just a coincidence
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.