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.
one hypothesis is when we supplement the general population with a calcium carbonate which is chalk not microcrystalline hydroxyapatite from bones supplement they're not getting any k2 because they're eating just chalk they're eating the shitty type of calcium basically rocks or actual real chalk you would use right on chalkboard and nobody is thinking about their k2 levels
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.
my suspicion my hypothesis is in the setting of vitamin k2 deficiency calcium supplementation in the form of calcium carbonate might increase cardiovascular risk