We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
you know there had been some concern for so long about you know avoiding statins in pregnancy you know for a while had that category X and so this actually led to overabundance of caution with just not treating women of reproductive age with statins at all because of fear that they might accidentally become pregnant and that we really of course do them a disservice if a third are going to be at risk for an MI before the age of 60 if they have FH and we don't treat
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.