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.
one of the reasons that this sort of got discarded for lack of a better word or at least ignored was people tended to focus on the exceptions and there were exceptions right certain lung cancers certainly seem to pose an exception to the Warburg effect and so the idea was we'll look if you have an exception than the rule is not so much a rule anymore and is there another reason why the Warburg effect was largely ignored for you know a generation and a half to two generations
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.