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 you had that group then you had the antict 4 group and then you had antict 4 plus GP 100 yeah what's the rationale for the 3:1: one it's basically it increases statistical power right so you know this total study was a little under 700 people they put 400 in the anti-la 4 plus gp1 100 group and then you you know little over 130 in each of the other two groups
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.