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 it's retrospective we're looking backwards it's observational we're not we're not doing anything right we're not telling these people to do this or telling those people to do that um and the hope when you do this is that you're going to see some sort of pattern undoubtedly you will see a pattern of course the question is will you be able to establish causality in that pattern
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 are right about difficulty in establishing causation with observational studies.