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.
unless somebody is seeking to be a worldclass athlete in something in which case they should probably pay attention to their genetics and see whether or not it lines up well with a given sport although there have been you know exceptions where people who were incredibly um genetically um uh let's just say biased toward um not being able to perform well in a sport have nonetheless succeeded in performing at a world-class level
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.