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.
the thinking was that it was going to be an antibody response at the intestinal mucosal surface we had to induce an antibody response that was active in the intestinal mucosal surface which made us think it was going to have to be an oral vaccine which stimulated then immunity at the intestine and not a parental vaccine which would stimulate systemic immunity
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.