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.
I liken it to smoking cigarettes and cancer there are plenty of individuals who smoke cigarettes you know smoke tobacco and don't get lung cancer but there's no population that picks up cigarette smoking in large amounts that doesn't also have increased rates of of lung cancer so at a population level you know something is going on here
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.