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.
if there's a million people listening to us have this discussion and you know one in seven of them let's just say one in 10 of them at some point in the next couple of years are going to experience the type of injury that would benefit from this
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.
the data was showing something like one in seven people in the country are afflicted and the the uh socioeconomic costs are massive and there's also you know going to your whole uh uh quality of life and longevity bias i mean we're talking about something that can really affect someone's ability to exercise at all and it can lead to exacerbation of other medical problems so it's a huge problem