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.
eating higher levels of fish maybe links to a greater risk of melanoma here's the actual study from brown university fish intake and the risk of melanoma in the nih aarp diet and health study and in fact yes this is epidemiology but higher total fish intake tuna intake and non-fried fish intake positively associated with both the risk of milling and melanoma
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.
fish is still associated with the consumption of malignant melanoma over and over
higher total fish intake tuna intake and non-fried fish intake positively associated with both the risk of milling and melanoma and melanoma in situ which is melanoma before it actually becomes malignant or problematic