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 you almost would assert that that's almost an axiom right like we reserved that term for something that on first principles is immutable or dogmatic right so you know in biology there aren't many things that we are so confident in that we say that about but one of them is that DNA codes for RNA codes for protein that has just become an axiom of biology
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.
we understood that DNA was a template that was used to make RNA and that RNA was then used to make protein and that's you know essentially the axiomatic uh principle of Life