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 honestly, it's, you know, only in an extreme case would that give me an insight. In other words, only if somebody is 50 and they have a glamular filtration rate of somebody who's 80 would I say the negative. But the positive isn't really 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.
If you look at my glomemeular filtration rate, it's over a 100. That doesn't really tell you much about me, even though I'm over 50 years old. It tells you that my kidneys are in great shape, but it doesn't tell you that I have the kidneys of a 20year-old because quite frankly, they haven't really deteriorated in any measurable way since I'm 20.