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.
so the hypothesis was what if the increase in inflammation we see is due to greater and greater mitochondrial damage that is leading to more and more exposure of mitochondrial DNA and I believe to test that it used sting and remind me I think sting actually blocks the ability of the cell to sense the mitochondrial DNA is that correct
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.