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.
um they would take a field and they would they would put pesticide on three quarters of the field and leave one quarter alone these you know you would knock this population down but you would not you to this last quarter of the field you're applying no selection for resistance and so these guys would then uh move out to the rest of the field and you know you would eventually get this low population but you're not selecting for resistance
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.
for example um they would take a field and they would they would put pesticide on three quarters of the field and leave one quarter alone these you know you would knock this population down but you would not you to this last quarter of the field you're applying no selection for resistance