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.
Now the validity of that study is questioned even though it was done by Johnny Anita Sanjay Bhattacharya who are well respected researchers at Stanford people have questioned the validity of those numbers based on the fact that you get into kind of this the statistics weeds what's the pretest probability what is the actual positive part is give al you how many false positives are there how many false negatives are there
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.