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.
I believe the better we can evaluate using biomarkers the better we can identify many of the known existing pathologies I'm sure as many we don't fully understand yet and then perhaps we can better individualize our therapeutic suggestions to these people and know what we have to do both nutritionally and pharmacologically if that's necessary to normalize whatever you're trying to normalize
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.