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.
so if you take a group of children and this has been done seven to 11 year old children and you send half of them outside for 80 minutes during the school day for recess and half of them stay inside in an indoor environment for their recess the risk of or the incidence of nearsightedness is 50 higher higher or it's half in the group that went outside
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.