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.
a lot of times people use these relative risk numbers as a mix and make the mistake of just saying the percentage without you know saying what that means in context of the specific study and the numbers of people studied so people will say you know vegetarians have a 15% you know less risk the meat eaters of developing heart disease or for all cause mortality and they just stop there right
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.
and a lot of times people use these relative risk numbers as a mix and make the mistake of just saying the percentage without you know saying what that means in context of this specific study and the numbers of people studied
we've also learned about like a lot of research biases that can like in that can include different statistics to make it look more pretty like relative r R versus absolute risk