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.
the link to cancer which was the main link was you know there's evidence there certainly but it was kind of equivocal too and so if it was equivocal when you were dealing with people who were 20 times more exposed then it's gonna all the more be kind of like is this really the main driver of cancer when we've already gotten rid of 95 percent of our exposure
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.