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.
those are the two formulations that were very commonly used and also importantly those were the two formulations that had been extensively studied in the observational studies where the results had looked very promising for a lower risk of heart disease and cognitive decline all cause mortality so it was felt to be important to test the formulations that had contributed so much to the observational study findings
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.