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.
like I'm uh apparently there's a phase 2 trial that is happening either in Canada or Japan and then there's six month results that are more impressive that they're um highlighting so and these phase two studies are specifically for sarcopenia
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.
uh apparently there's a phase two trial that is happening either in Canada or Japan and then there's six month results that are more impressive that they're um highlighting so and these phase two studies are specifically for sarcopenia so I'm assuming they're recruiting people over 60