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 his big expose that one of the higher-ups at this hospital he was an MD PhD was taking money that he hadn't disclosed from pharmaceutical companies and was downplaying the potential for side effects and some of these cancer drugs that he was reporting on or publishing on and some of his in some of his papers
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.