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.
you might have one twin whose spleen is 30% larger than the than the other Twins or whose liver is 30% smaller than the other twins even though they have the exact same DNA and they were lying right next to each other in the womb and presumably had the same or very similar fetal environment
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.
and the reason is the random or as we say stochastic nature nature of neural development