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.
so he suggested that we give to mice a drug that would it would break down to produce hydrogen sulfide a drug called sg1002 so we tried it and we messed up we had control mice that were on the wrong control food and the mice given jay's drug did better than the mice or the raw control food but we didn't publish that because we were not sure what would have happened if we'd use the right control food
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.