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.
if you look at all of the studies in the 1950s and the 1960s they were all really moving in the same direction and that's whether you looked at physicians who were smokers non-physicians who were smokers whichever series of data you looked at you basically saw this 10x multiplier in smoking and i think on average it worked out to be about 14x
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.