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.
I could see how there's a pretty significant financial incentive for people who are really desperate to have children or who just simply might want to have children down the road to um they hear low stem is better we're talking multiple low stem Cycles they might be um even a fraction of the cost of a full stim cycle but then there many many more got low Cycles you got it you can make a lot more money by doing things that are not in the best interest of the patient
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.