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's one thing that works. Uh number two, uh we haven't looked at all the different permeations. So there's a bunch of things that could potentially work that we haven't tried. And then three is because we base this on evidence, we do things that uh have been clinically tested. Now other things can be effective in doing in accomplishing these objectives and not have evidence. That's totally fine.
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.