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.
another example would be cigarettes if you smoked a cigarette twice a week literally one cigarette twice twice a week would your risk of cancer go up yes but you wouldn't be able to measure it that doesn't change the fact that cigarettes are harmful right
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.
another example would be cigarettes if you smoked a cigarette twice a week literally one cigarette Twi twice a week would your risk of cancer go up yes but you wouldn't be able to measure it that doesn't change the fact that cigarettes are harmful right to mention heart disease like that that is not a linear like that like yeah yeah yeah no no no I mean I mean it's it's it but even just focusing on cancer right like it really comes down to kind of establishing causality right is tobacco causally related to disease yes it's it's it's a harmful thing to take but the dose matters right like again just being glib one cigarette a week is it's probably increasing risk but we don't live long enough to see that to see the separation of those Kaplan Meyer curves right maybe if we lived maybe if our natural lifespan was 500 one cigarette a week would be sufficient to see a spreading of those lines but at an 80e lifespan eh you have to get up to 10 cigarettes a day before we can see where that is