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.
we decided to use sodium azide because it's less potent than cyanide and when you do that yes you have an animal that are a very low level of decreasing you can decrease up to 30% without seeing any neurological evidence change the animals appear to be eating and behaving normally but when you test than we kinda need memory tears they cannot perform well
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.