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.
And in fact, I'm writing a review now saying, "Hey, we should rethink vitamins because half the proteins in Dr. McCann's analyses turned out to be involved with long-term things, not short-term. And calcification of the arteries or DNA damage or other things that were more long-term.
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.
Anyway, I'm writing a theoretical paper why there are lots of things out there that we probably should be calling vitamins that are more long-term things.