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.
you'll see these people that you know otherwise seem reasonable but their C-reactive protein is somewhere between two and three so it's two to three times higher than it should be and it lingers in this state for a very long period of time there's no clearly no infection that's been brewing for that long and you you query them a little bit more and you sort of realized that it might be attributed to food
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.