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.
you have to know absolute risk you have to know relative risk and you have to know the period over time under which the condition was studied relative to the natural course of the illness it's that third party point that doesn't get enough attention
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.
you have to know absolute risk you have to know relative risk and you have to know the period over time under which the condition was studied relative to the natural course of the illness