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.
I think that's why it's so important when you're looking at epi studies that are associative that are not a clinical, randomizable trial, coupling that data with mechanistic data done on animal models or lower organisms, I think coupling the two is very important because then you go, "Oh, okay. We've noticed this observational data and here we've done X, Y or Z to manipulate it in a worm or in a fly or a mouse."
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.