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.
Well, a researcher a couple decades ago had a hypothesis that because of its anti-inflammatory properties, and a few other properties of colchicine, that it might be able to reduce the risk of heart attacks in people who have already had a heart attack, or maybe in general, but in particular in people who have already had a heart attack.
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, they ended up changing the dose of that medicine, of colchicine. So, it's a slightly different dose from the one they use for gouty arthritis, but it has a very substantial reduction in heart disease risk if you had a prior heart attack and, in particular, if you had a prior heart attack and you have diabetes, a really, really meaningful reduction.