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.
his criteria i don't think that he he thought of them as criteria and and i i don't think that he ever believed that they should be applied as a hard rule to arbitrate that we have found something that is causal versus something that is not causal
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.
if if you read through the paper it's a classic it's very obvious that he has a very temperate approach he has a very cautious approach basically he says none of these items is really bulletproof i can always come up with an example where it doesn't work