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.
Um, and Ed called me and he said, "You're not going to believe what I have in the ED." He said, "I've got someone." >> The ED is the >> emergency department came in with a full-blown seizure. And um but that this is all in this paper. It's unpacked. It was what we think happened is that he took a medaphanil, which is a um drug for actually narcolepsy. He was feeling tired. His his wife uh had these drugs and so he took this on top of his wellestablished use of of this.
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.
Now, at the moment in time that that happened, this was a N equals one case ever. Um, and my friend Ed said, "This sounds like the holy grail. If you can get off of it >> off the >> you never off the off of >> and now you don't even have a craving to go back to it."