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.
And so, even though the paper was published in 2013, and this gentleman came to us in 2016, and of course hundreds of people had died in the previous three years, no one had ever actually tested whether a PD-1 inhibitor could be useful for angiosarcoma, even though... Again, it was just a laboratory study published three years earlier, but no one had ever translated that insight into using it in a patient.
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.