Andrew Huberman· PhD
but I think an important principle for us in public health communication has to be that we're clear that we're transparent about what we know and what we don't know uh and that we explain the why to people
Loading…
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.
but I think an important principle for us in public health communication has to be that we're clear that we're transparent about what we know and what we don't know uh and that we explain the why to people
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.
we have to be even more Vigilant those of us in medicine and public health to make sure that what we do is based on data that we're transparent about why we're saying what we're saying that we're also clear about what we know and what we don't know so that if recommendations change over time people recognize that this isn't necessarily flip-flopping you should change your recommendations if the data changes uh if the circumstances change