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.
the fact is nobody's going to do the definitive clinical trial in people because they don't have to because they can sell that stuff to people now right they don't they aren't required to do the clinical trial to show that it works
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.
I think the way you framed that that question to Steve is indicative of why it's so hard to disprove something especially when there are people out there who have money to make who really want to want to you know make the case that you should buy this stuff