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.
in general when a patient has a calcium score of something that's not zero you put them on a statin and over time their calcium score expands even though that sounds like a negative thing it turns out to be a good thing provided they've been on a statin so that seems to be a plaque stabilization
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.
but it reduces your risk despite that because it's making the plaques less prone to rupture