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.
So I don't think there's any active suppression by pharma. I think pharma would probably be cheering from the sidelines because they could capitalize on it, because ultimately, the studies are done by scientists. But the treatments are generally doled out by pharmaceutical companies and/or physicians. So I don't believe there's a conspiracy there.
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.