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.
my lab gets their liver and we look at a batch of mrnas because we want to at least satisfy ourselves that the drug did something we've picked rnas in the liver that we know almost always sensitive to drugs and if the drug was given to the mice and nothing happened in the liver we start to get worried
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.
my lab gets their liver and we look at a batch of mrnas because we want to at least satisfy ourselves that the drug did something we've picked rnas in the liver that we know are almost always sensitive to drugs and if the drug was given to the mice and nothing happened in the liver we start to get worried maybe the drug was excreted quickly and didn't have any biological effect whatsoever