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.
And then the being open is about a willingness to go there, to confront, to be inquisitive. Something that's easier said than done. Can be terrifying. When you're dealing with a very vulnerable population, it's probably more-- the rule then, the exception that they're carrying some significant adversity, life adversity or frank trauma that they've suffered. And so that message of be open, be willing to confront and to go there is really powerful.
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.