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 a study where rats were given a chemical compound that causes bladder cancer, almost 96% of those animals went on to develop large tumors. By comparison, only 38% of the animals that were given a very high dose of isothiocyanates at the same time went on to develop cancer. And those that did develop cancer of the tumors were much smaller in size.
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.