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.
you showed that you were able to basically take a person that had Alzheimer's disease, some of them had to leave work because of their issues, and you put them on a protocol and they were not only were able to some of them return to work but they also seem to have brain mass returning and just so it was really phenomenal.
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.
we have over 3,000 people who are on this protocol with unprecedented, and we've published a number of the results.