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.
So we could look at what are people's clinical parameters out of the reference range. Should they be being prescribed some drug and they're not being given it? And that goes up to about 20%. and and when you're 65 years old than year 2000 in the US meaning 25% of people should be giving treated for something but they're not being treated those people have a higher biologic age and faster mortality not surprising
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.