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.
what people say to me is well david it's confounding what you're seeing probably almost certainly is that the mice that are the strongest and healthiest have the biggest appetites they eat more and what you're seeing is confounding by general health to which i say right that's the point
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.
but then we take the ed lebedum group and within that some choose to eat more than others and within that group now we have an observational epidemiologic study and we correlate amount chosen to be eaten with longevity and those mice that choose to eat more live longer so the association in the observational component is exactly opposite to the causal effect in the experimental component