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 this, of course, applies to medicine. And it's a forgotten rule in medicine. Although it does seem like one of the things that I've always felt physicians innately do well without realizing it, which is the opposite of where I want to be, not to take the pot shots, but I think where we do very poorly is in understanding asymmetric risk.
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.