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.
so i do think that people who give information around people's health and longevity with such a with what's going to increase the risk of dementia and cancer i think that they it should be um there should be a warning that says even some kind of warning like on cigarette smoking that says even though this may have some short-term benefits there are proven long-term dangers and this person's guidance should be taken with that in mind
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.