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.
so there was um a small i mean it was 96 patients it didn't feel like a small trial it was only 24 patients per arm so we weren't powered for the really for the full interaction but actually we're taking it forward now into a phase three with 280 patients so that's good again funded by the uk state which is great so we get to run it in nhs settings and hopefully see it as a medicine you know in those in those contexts
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.