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 actually think people do want knowledge and I don't think they're the ones giving the counterargument to be honest. Right. But I think it's our colleagues who say, "Oh, people don't want to hear that." Or they make assumptions. And again, in today's world where we have data, like why are we talking about assumptions? Let's give people data and let them make the choices they make.
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.