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.
the Grant application he put in was received by somebody with no medical background and no medical no medical or scientific advice or country opinion or anything was sought by the funding agency it was literally a lawyer a young lawyer with no uh back background in in science who simply uh authorized the work
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.