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.
later in subsequent paper in 1995 in new england journal of medicine that same group said you've got to throw out the subjects who have more weight variability right all the things they said in 1987 weren't enough to flatten out that left end of the u-shaped curve so they said throw out the subjects who die excuse me who have a lot of weight fluctuation and that didn't completely get rid of it but got rid of most of it
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.