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.
But there's a huge amount of honey that's fake today. Huge. Like, what percentage are we talking about? I don't think anyone actually knows and I don't think there's really any way to know because when you say fake honey, so let me give you an example.
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.
So I would have called that a fake honey product because what it had was was let's call it 1 to 3% honey and then 97% everything else.