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.
in this analysis if you compare a smoker to a non-smoker and ask the question what is the probability of that smoker dying in the coming 12 months from any and all causes the answer is it's 41% greater than the nonsmoker
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.
smoking is 50% uh increase being weak relative to being strong is about 250%