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.
diabetes which is these huge increases in blood glucose because there's no insulin was known about as early as 1500 BC which is just incredible and the way Physicians then understood that certain people had high blood glucose without actually knowing what blood glucose was is that they would take the urine of particular patients and they'd find that ants preferably move toward and consumed the urine of certain patients and not others
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.
as late as 1674 physicians at Oxford University were figuring out who had pathologically high levels of blood glucose by analyzing their urine and again they were measuring the sweetness of their urine but and this is medical fact they would do this by taking urine samples from different p patients and tasting them and they developed an intuitive sense of what excessively sweet urine was relative to the other urines that they had tasted