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.
data from after 2004 looks much less impressive than it did before 2004 but Amanda analysis pushes all of this together and we lose the details amongst all of the numerous studies that are being considered this is the problem this is a Nuance of a meta-analysis that must be considered carefully
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.
these lines are very different slope going many of them either slightly downward or even upward depending on the primary endpoints relative to the pre-2004 studies
however unfair and unethical problems were associated with clinical trials reported by industry supported scientists and new penal regulations on clinical trials came in effect in 2004
after 2004 to 2005 all clinical trials performed by scientists relatively free of conflict conflict of interest with pharmaceutical Industries reported that statens were effective in lowering ldlc but no significant beneficial effects were observed for the prevention of of cardiovascular heart or coronary heart disease