We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
and they would quote for example a study that I think was published around it was the early 1900s so 1919 to 1925 let's say and about indigenous people in North East of Canada which they referred to as Eskimos and and the article is cited over and over in other scientific papers and of course a lot of books etc for the proposition that eating fish did not help these people with cardiovascular health
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.