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 think at the end of your go back and listen to you boast admitting you don't use the darn drug anymore I think the difference is and this is where I'd love to hear your take I think Ron's point of view was the niacin trials may have failed for the same reason that we would see the discussions we talked about earlier which was overly statin eyes patients
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 I don't think there's anybody out there that says hey nice and his first line I don't think anybody would argue that