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.
in 2017 there was a court ruling that 7-eleven and yum yum donuts would post prop 65 warnings on their coffee because it contained acrylamide now this is a law firm's website showing this but you can look up this legal decision uh this involved starbucks walmart costco 70 other companies who were serving coffee and the prop 65 lawsuit said that because it had acrylamide they needed to say that this was in there and it was a potential carcinogen a bad thing for humans
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.