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.
ivan france who was on the paper with another project investigator he was asked by gary tabbs a journalist why did you not publish the paper for 16 years and he said well there was nothing wrong with it our study but we were just so disappointed in the way it came out because i'll just say we couldn't handle the results we couldn't handle the results
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.
This was such a surprise to the experimenters that they chose not to publish the results of this study for another, I believe, 13 years. Um, so the Minnesota Heart Experiment or the coronary Minnesota, I forget, there were several different names for it, but this this study was not published until the 80s.