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.
in the 1960s and 70s if you look at some of the published series there were mortality rates mortality rates meaning the patient died after kidney transplantation of 50 60 even 70 percent so it's not only that they lost their graft but the consequences of the operation the immunosuppression subsequent usually infections you know was was uh making these procedures highly morbid and and unsuccessful at least at rates that we would think of as acceptable now
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.