4 ms·
When I read this, I assumed it was an indirect jab at Trump.
by torrance 10y ago
When I read this, I assumed it was an indirect jab at Trump.
- buckbova 10y agoOf course it is. That's why it's published now and any evidence is cited from 2004[1] and 2016[2]. [1] http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/news041129-4.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041129/full/news041129-4.htm... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/02/a-decade-of-deadlock-over-alzheimers-treatment-may-be-drawing-to-a-close https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/nov/02/a-decade-of-...
- james_pm 10y agoExactly what I thought. The article written by a journalist with a Twitter feed full of anti-Trump tweets, about a speech at a conference in Boston that also featured an anti-Trump protest. Bringing the Reagan angle into the story sealed it. The biggest tell is that this article, and the many that were also written in other news sites (rewritten, really) don't cite a specific study.