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.
They also disproportionately took much sicker women. I believe the prevalence, and again, I'm going to get some of these numbers wrong and people are going to get all phosphorylated, but, you know, I mean, I'm in the ballpark, right? Something like 30, 40% of these women were smokers. The prevalence of obesity, diabetes was enormous. So they really disproportionately picked the most unhealthy population they could, that was pretty advanced in age.
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.
the quality of the health of the women enrolled in that study do you want to say a little bit about for example the prevalence of obesity smoking hypertension conditions their average age was 63 10 years after the average age of a woman entering menopause 70% of them were seriously overweight or obese more than half were smokers they had high rates of hypertension and this was not an ideal healthy sample by any mean