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.
they'll make a few statements and they're simple statements they're accurate they you can argue with those statements they they ring true and you believe them and then maybe the last thing they're going to say is not quite true but because of you average the information and you go okay it's he's speaking the truth now he's telling us the truth but in between those statements there's some inaccuracies there that are starting to manipulate you but they're half truth
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.