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.
before I diagnosed somebody is clinically depressed there's levels of lab work that I will check on them before I'll say yeah so really diagnose diagnosing somebody with depression should be a diagnosis of exclusion on multiple levels
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.
it's just the fact that they that we are not taught this way
diagnosing somebody with depression should be a diagnosis of exclusion on multiple levels