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.
science is messy science is uncertain science speaks in probabilities and science constantly changes in the face of new information right so science is a process not a thing right science says this is what we know today with this degree of certainty as new information becomes available the new truth will be this so truth is not a constant within science right truth we hopefully converges on greater certainty
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.
which is that you know even the best experiments don't produce certainty they just increase the probability of one idea being more likely than another
science is not a thing right it's a process what is highly probable today is is probably a better way of describing something that we think is true new information should always be updating probability