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, you know, certainly had some fits and starts, right? They initially were just replacing estrogen. Um, figured out pretty quickly, i.e. within a few years that if you only gave a woman estrogen, you were going to run the risk of endometrial cancer going up because the endometrial lining just continued to get bigger and bigger and bigger and you eventually developed hyperplasia, which presumably became metiplasia and ultimately cancer.
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.