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.
in the Alzheimer's study by John ringman and colleagues when they did a randomized study on curcumin for mild to moderate Alzheimer's this study was negative but when they did the blood samples the curcumin was being swallowed and not being absorbed in the blood so I wonder why curcumin didn't work
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.