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.
it turns out that there are immense differences in in major kidney disease and in cardiovascular disease and even death so the people who at least for seven years had tighter control versus less tight control but then for 23 years were identical to their peers still retained some benefit from the seven years yes thirty years earlier in cardiovascular disease which is amazing and death
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.
at least in the primary outcome measure for the for the cardiovascular trial it's approximately 1/3 less of the primary outcome measure so that's really exciting and it suggests that if you were able to routinely achieve blood glucoses in the near normal range you could drop your risk for cardiovascular disease accordingly to something that was approaching a normal healthy non diabetic person
yes there are many more hypoglycemic events and there was weight gain and so when they jack up the insulin people found themselves eating more carbs and eating out of the hole