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.
the reduced trial of 8 000 participants that had a median follow-up of 4.9 years and these same fish oils resulted in a 25 relative reduction in the primary composite cardiovascular endpoint compared to mineral oil if you wonder if the mineral oil was a bad thing or if the fish oils were potentially doing something good at the cardiovascular level but there was a significant increase in atrial fibrillation again the p was point zero zero three
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.