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 so you you wouldn't just look at one patient you would say well um you know I've now been looking back at my clinical practice and I've had you know 27 patients over the last 40 years that have demonstrated this very unusual finding and uh another example of this going back to the Steve Rosenberg case would be one could write a paper that looks at all spontaneous regressions of cancer
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.