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.
the traditional way we do this in the very old days believe it or not was based on on um looking at bacteria and how they would grow on an augur um that was depleted in phenyalanine and we would take a heel prick from a baby and put a little dried blood spot um punch of that dried blood spot onto a bacterial lawn and see again where the bacteria would grow so in the very old days in the late 60s early 70s we did the screen in that way
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.