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 in this case the relative risk reduction would be whatever the absolute one was I think two percent divided by the non-exposure risk which is five percent so that's 40 so they had a 40 percent relative risk reduction going from five percent to three percent
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.
so in this case the relative risk reduction would be whatever the absolute one was I think two percent divided by the non-exposure risk which is five percent so that's 40 so they had a 40 percent relative risk reduction going from five percent to three percent