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 the second question in this particular case was that there was a very promising group of medicines that was being used in clinic in fact I had used them as a trial list they had come really out of Luke Hanley's path defining work he had defined the pathway or the signals that these medicines attack and there was an enormous amount of optimism because this was considered a fundamental pathway
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.