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 it's certainly very easy to make the case that in the 1980s, women who were taking hormones had a healthy user bias, right? These are women that probably had better access to health care. They were probably more health consscious, and as a result, they were probably doing many more things to improve the quality of their health.
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 it's certainly very easy to make the case that in the 1980s, women who were taking hormones had a healthy user bias, right? These are women that probably had better access to health care. They were probably more health consscious, and as a result, they were probably doing many more things to improve the quality of their health.