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.
whereas with nuclear medicine what we typically do since we're actually gonna inject somebody with radioactive material as a results we've exposed them to that radiation so all parts of the body so as a result as it circulates through their entire body we want to take pictures of everything from head to foot because if we're gonna give somebody radiation we want to maximize the amount of data we're gonna extract from that exposure
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.
so when we talk about the nuclear medicine so when we're injecting somebody's radioactivity we want to basically optimize that dose that we're giving to somebody so that means we want to cover everything from head to foot we don't want to just look at an individual body part and we want to see how it all works