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.
there was a reviewer at the fledgling FDA who refused to approve a drug called thalidomide... she basically held firm they basically saying that she didn't have enough information on the drug and of course it turned out she was correct America dodged a bullet because that drug was associated with children who were born with flipper like arms so it was associated with horrible birth defects
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.