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.
So they need to rewrite the story. I created this workbook that's a like a step-by-step guide. I'm not sort of doing this to plug the workbook. I'm saying it's a very methodical process. You have to break down the story.
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.
So, it's a guide that really it's what I would do with someone in the therapy room if I were helping them to rewrite their story and to look at is this a faulty narrative? What does this look like? What are the true stories? What resonates with me now at this part of my life? Where do these stories come from? Who told me these stories? Um, can I try this out in real life? Here's an exercise to do this week.
So I feel like I'm almost like an editor in the therapy room when people come in and they bring this story and my job is to help them edit the story so that this faulty narrative that was never true or someone, you know, whoever told them that story, whether they explicitly said you're not lovable or showed them through their actions that they then felt not lovable, that story was told by another narrator.