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.
All right, so what I'm getting at is an example of, we need to personalize medicine and look at people over the long run to know what works for them and what's healthy for them, and not just work towards the average human, but work towards what's optimal for human.
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.
and not just work towards the average human, but work towards what's optimal for human.
an example of we need to personalize medicine and look at people over the long run to know what works for them and what's healthy for them, and not just work towards the average human, but work towards what's optimal for human.