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.
it basically asks a series of questions so the first question is what is the risk of harm from doing this thing so that's a direct question so if you do x how high is the probability of harm um the second question is obviously the contrapositive of that if you do x what is the probability of benefit um and then the third question and by the way before i go to the third question those first two questions are so obvious that they're almost not worth stating
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.