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.
Yes. In American medicine we are so much better at starting medicines than we are at taking them away, right? And part of that I think is driven by such a strong presence of the pharmaceutical industry and the pharmaceutical industry does a lot of very good things, right? But you know, there's such thing as too much of a good thing, right? And then as a society, when something seems positive, this I think
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.
a medicine can kind of take the temperature down a little bit you know give you a little more distress tolerance and then you know we can you can think about it better inside of you and we can talk about it better but it's medicine in the service of understanding
maybe a judiciously chosen medicine could provide a little more distress tolerance and you could sort of think about it more and you could find your way through it