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.
the one place that either as an investigator or a consumer of this science where you have to force yourself to look closely as you can be fooled if the randomization of genes meaning if the genes that you're looking at can also control something else that is related to the disease that could have a counterbalancing effect
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.
as soon as you have feedback loops you can get phenomenon called reverse causation you can have your genetic instrument also has to be really really good