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.
in reality to give people a sense of this and you know a mammography might have an 85 percent sensitivity which means if you do a mammogram on 100 women who are known to have breast cancer it might only tell you that 85 of those hundred do so it's correctly identifying 85 it's erroneously it's giving you a false negative in 15 of the 100.
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.