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.
But it seems especially pronounced in the Xi paper um as this study which was based in the US reported rates of autism in the participants at roughly 11%. So meaning when you look at all of the participants who completed that study, 11% of the kids had autism. But for context, the general population currently at that 5x increase is 3%. And at the time of enrollment, it was 7%. The enrollment was between 98 and 2004.
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.