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.
And so, our decision has been always understand enough the mechanisms to be able to not, or minimize the chance of making mistakes, get to the clinical trial, and then, go back and fill it in, right? Rather than step, by step, by step, by step, you know, and then it'll take you 15 years to get to clinical trial.
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.