Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
we haven't really done the analysis on the survivors yet we don't understand how much lingering myocarditis is out there we don't understand how much lingering kidney disease is out there we don't understand how much lingering lung disease remains in terms of fibrosis or permanent destruction of a subset of the numa sites
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.