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.
There are some mechanistic insights that suggest a negative " impact on the endothelium and it's certainly plausible that anything that negatively impacts the endothelium could increase the risk of cardiovascular disease " but " these are not studies that have been you know these are not large studies these are not studies that have been done in humans and these are extrapolations typically from other animal u uh models
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.
Um, there are some mechanistic insights that suggest a negative uh impact on the endothelium and it's certainly plausible that anything that negatively impacts the endothelium could increase the risk of cardiovascular disease. Um, but um these are not studies that have been you know these are not large studies. These are not studies that have been done in humans and these are extrapolations typically from other animal u uh models.