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.
at the time that it was stopped the hazard ratio was 0.95 so there was a suggestion of a five percent reduction in in in in the risk of death from cardiovascular events so in the right direction but the 95 confidence interval or uncertainty interval if we're going to adopt that terminology was 0.83 to 1.09 so it crossed one and so you know the p-value is going to be greater than 0.05 in fact the p-value was 0.5 0.51 or something like that
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.