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.
What we found was a lot of yellow lights. Maybe, you know, this person might be contraindicated or there's a change here that might elevate risk. And so of course we defer to safety. And so even those yellow lights, generally those individuals were not then recruited into the study, which is no doubt influencing outcomes.
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.
But I always wonder, I'm like, so are these people just going to sit around then and continue doing nothing? And is that in itself raising their risk?