<i>You start by saying they give all the details.</i><p>That&#x27;s not what I said.  It&#x27;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&#x27; findings, <i>without</i> echoing all the details.  That is, it wasn&#x27;t anything like the FUD piece you were making it out to be.<p><i>Do you at least agree that the article doesn&#x27;t explain what the quoted 87% increase means in a way the readership is going to understand?</i><p>No.  It&#x27;s very clear, from my reading.  I&#x27;ll agree that not <i>every</i> reader is going to understand it, but anyone with say, median freshman-level skills in reading comprehension ought to be able to understand it.<p><i>Can you explain what that 87% increase means?</i><p>Yes.  But I&#x27;m not going to do it for you.<p><i>The article had almost no relevance to this thread; it was dumped here as yet more pill-shaming bollocks;</i><p>It&#x27;s fine if you want to think that.  Doesn&#x27;t seem relevant to what I was saying, though.