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 what that means is that each one of you has to be your own advocate here. Each one of you has to be the one to say, you know what, I understand that there are risks of screening. I understand that there are risks of false positives, but I am confident enough at least in the case of this particular test and the derivative tests that we can derive ancillary to it that I want
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.