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.
there's avoiding acute issues like scurvy and then there's what's the long-term chronic disease risk which can be I think a lot harder to piece out because some of those most of those conditions take decades it's to develop and I would say we don't yet even have a complete understanding of how they do develop
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.
because of the lack of a population we can look at that has done this over a long period of time and didn't have any issues