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.
most uh you know studies done like uh around 1900 showed that less than 5% of the population had blood pressures of over 140 over 90 um and so uh based upon the the normal gausian curve of the population back then uh probably about uh 140 or 90 should was the cut off for what was thought to be high
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.
you know, your blood pressure has to be, you know, 130 over 90 and that was a normal range.