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, I need to fix this. And yes, you're right that there is a hole in the in the data here that it doesn't fully support the hypothesis the way I thought it did. And it's and that's okay. Like it's okay not to have the story complete. It's okay not to have every detail of it right. Just acknowledge that you don't, you know, acknowledge what you think the weaknesses are.
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.