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.
it's the idea is that animal foods have been incorrectly vilified for the last three decades that we're looking at bad science and bad epidemiology that's been misinterpreted when we're hearing all of this media rhetoric that animal foods and animal meat is bad for us and in fact these foods are the most bioavailable sources of all of the nutrients that we know are necessary for a healthy immune system
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.