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.
this is a disease for which there is no treatment in its 8 fold more prevalent than the wet disease that you can treat with anti veg s this is a disease that appears to have senescence associated with what's the distribution of those two so people that have age associated macular degeneration one in eight has the wet disease and only that one out of eight people is treatable with the anti veg F antibodies seven out of eight of those people are untreatable
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.