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 in the end on the the primary measure there was no difference that cytosine at six weeks was as good uh as um or equal to as uh escitalopram on that particular measure which was a a particular self-report measure called the quid self-report
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.
now when they if you don't meet this is a bit statistical sort of jargon really but if you don't meet your primary you're not allowed to report the secondaries it's kind of it's absolute it's it's it's purism it's puristic statistics but as you as you say it's kind of not very intuitive because when you look at it actually it was very clear that the overall the many m well there was not a single measure that favored acid telephone