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.
and using the example you gave if you took the odds ratio of um you know death so let's talk all cause mortality for a smoker versus a nonsmoker and the answer were 1.78 I'm making that up but that's directionally correct 1.78 as an odds ratio means there's a 78% chance greater of the outcome of interest in this case death by any cause in the affected Group which would be the smokers
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.