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.
if I knew nothing else the um was the asthma the 289 Celiac Celiac so the fact that that had such a strong Hazard ratio that a hazard ratio of 2.9 versus the others that are like 1.2 right you would say well just on the basis of strength of Association that one's more likely to be causal
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.
if if I knew nothing else the um was the asthma the 289 Celiac Celiac so the fact that that had such a strong Hazard ratio that's a hazard ratio of 2.9 versus the others that are like 1.2 right you would say well just on the basis of strength of Association that one's more likely to be causal