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.
the hierarchy of evidence the pyramid you got meta analysis systematic reviews randomized control trials you have cohort data epidemiology and then animal studies tend to get kind of lumped in together and then you got like case studies and so on and so forth right
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.
Yeah, you know, I grew up in the scientific world of, you know, the hierarchy of evidence. So you've got epidemiological evidence, case-control studies, but really the thing that you need to have to be able to look a patient in the face and say, This is going to help you is a randomized control trial.