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.
We weren't the first cardiologists have been doing it for years if you look at cardiologists they were shocking the heart and they look at the reperfusion and it was reperfusing the heart Orthopedics to it for uh joints and they use it for plantar fasciitis and it's used for a lot of conditions
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.