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.
I think that the whole diagnosis of just relying on an a1c being above 6.5 is not very helpful because one I don't think I trust that number enough to hang my hat on it and secondly why is it that somebody who's got maybe an average blood glucose of 120 which wouldn't quite be at that threshold at a fasting level but has these postprandial glucose is of 200 why would we not consider that person to be at risk
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.