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.
Pub Pier folks is where um papers are evaluated online people find um sometimes outright errors um and sure there are those like sleuthing for for like yeah you find fraud for fraud but most of what's put there is stuff like um you know differences in interpretation or or somebody will suggest that you know the authors could have done a better analysis or that maybe their conclusions were a little too far-reaching based on a particular set of methods
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.
I'm assuming the whole purpose of pup here is to to better the work and of course um point out you know where there are real errors in in the the historical literature right