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.
VAERS can use to generate hypotheses, but not to test them directly. So in summary, I think it's good for researchers to generate hypothesis from VAERS data, but it's a problem when newspapers turn hypotheses of observational data that haven't been peer reviewed yet and turn them into headlines.
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.