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.
in some cases and again I bring in cancer it becomes very important to know for those somatic mutations that won't weren't there from birth that they may be there in a small number of cells but cells that can be very very dangerous for cancer and so we may increase the readed depth to be very very high we may go up to a,x in terms of rpth to make sure we've got the accuracy um to see something reproducibly even in 10% of cells
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.
but again we're 10% you need 10% of a large number to have the assurance that what you're seeing is in fact representative of the underlying biology not an artifact