You start by saying they give all the details. That's not what I said. It's basically the opposite of what I said. In my initial response to you, what I was

You start by saying they give all the details. That's not what I said. It's basically the opposite of what I said. In my initial response to you, what I was basically saying was that the article presented the key upshot of the researchers' findings, without echoing all the details. That is, it wasn't anything like the FUD piece you were making it out to be. Do you at least agree that the article doesn't explain what the quoted 87% increase means in a way the readership is going to understand? No. It's very clear, from my reading. I'll agree that not every reader is going to understand it, but anyone with say, median freshman-level skills in reading comprehension ought to be able to understand it. Can you explain what that 87% increase means? Yes. But I'm not going to do it for you. The article had almost no relevance to this thread; it was dumped here as yet more pill-shaming bollocks; It's fine if you want to think that. Doesn't seem relevant to what I was saying, though.