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.
when that drifts up to 125 130 135 140 in an aging population we're actually calling that pathologic in the same way that I think we would all agree that the reduction in glomerular filtration rate the reduction in ejection fraction the reduction in pulmonary function okay yes that occurs with aging but that doesn't mean that it's not part of an aging process and therefore part of something we want to minimize correct
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.