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.
I think the scale would be one. We just can't when you do a combination in mice, you've got four groups and I think we if we had more money, we could design sort of multiffactoral clinical studies and pre-clinical studies where we're testing many compounds at the same time. We're sort of doing nested groups, you know, and and we could get a indication for things that actually could be additive together. Uh not just things that are working on their own.
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.