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.
the very first one is that when we're young we tend to have very healthy mitochondria and where we're a lot of kids are active and we keep the mitochondria healthy and the way that this fructose works is it has to cause oxidative stress for the mitochondria to activate these pathways but if you have really really powerful mitochondria you won't show these metabolic effects as easily because they're more resistant to the effects of fructose
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.