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.
you have to figure out is there do you need a gap between the treatments because will the effects of that drug linger into the placebo period for one group which is not what's happening to the other group and even if it is um even if you're only doing it with one group are you confounding the effect of that treatment
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.
you have to figure out is there do you need a gap between the treatments because will the effects of that drug linger into the placebo period for one group which is not what's happening to the other group and even if it is um if you're only doing it with one group are you confounding the effect of that treatment
Meaning you can get the same amount of precision >> out of many fewer subjects. But the problem is that you have this carryover.
Now what you can do is what you said is a wash out. If you said I understand how this thing works and it's it's a molecular effect. It's not a social effect. It's not learning. It's not a surgical thing. I didn't cut a piece of their anatomy out, you know, that doesn't reverse. This thing is completely reversible. It's completely blinded. Um I gave a long enough wash out. Then you know by that argument you can say I rule it out.