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.
for example like if tomorrow I decided I didn't if I didn't know anything about LP little-a and I wanted to start from scratch I would you know go into PubMed in search LP little a review if I was lucky I'd know who the players in the field were but generally by looking at the citations you'd pretty quickly figure out Sam tameka's is God and then I would look for the last three review papers and tameka's has written on the topic I would start by looking at the figures
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.