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.
but look at saturated fat it this is our data and my colleague marie estoynosca who's a nutrition researcher in macedonia she she gathered all this data but the saturated fat you can see is practically a flat line for the whole century the whole 20th century didn't hardly change
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.
the saturated fat you can see is practically a flat line for the whole century the whole 20th century didn't hardly change so how could you possibly just this one graph anybody in their right mind could look at this and say saturated fat has nothing to do with heart disease there's no correlation there's no correlation if you did a if you did a correlation coefficient it wouldn't even correlate there's no correlation there