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 there's some evidence that suggests that even that over time the damage can accumulate and cause issues with cognitive function and there you call it sub-concussive because each individual one doesn't necessarily cause symptoms but depending on how you define the concussion you may or may not get um symptoms anyway so there's kind of a gray area there but you know each individual one would you wouldn't be able to detect it really
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.