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.
and then vice versa like if someone says to me you know I have a patient with metabolic syndrome and a high A1C um you know obesity diabetes um hyper lipidemia Etc should is that a high-risk patient that I should be really counseling and talking to about sexual medicine and then using that as a reason managing those issues to PR preserve sexual health
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.
you have a guy that shows up with a hemoglobin A1c of you know 5.9 so he doesn't have type 2 diabetes but he clearly has too much blood glucose and dyslipidemia a year later when you've got all those biomarkers improved he also notices he doesn't need his Calis anymore