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 is a kind of automated deferral of willpower to a folk algorithm that says in simple terms that if cholesterol is high to stop doing things that we know that make it higher in the cardiologist case we have an expert human in the decision-making Loop but they are operating off of population averages studies and their best guesses in the guise of intuition
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.