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.
It's this idea that in the stable case, it's the inability to dilate the target lesion and the plausible steal of blood. So morphologically, it's a totally reversible process. Nothing has changed. There hasn't been a new injury, but under a certain period of stress, you're able to basically see this area that otherwise can't function fully.
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.