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 those situations when strength and consistency are out the window which is essentially true of everything in nutritional epidemiology i can't really think of examples in nutritional epi where you have strength and consistency well major deficiencies i think would belong to the category of very clear signals major nutritional deficiencies you know if you have like yes yeah yeah very very for example sure sure yeah you're you know thymine deficiency where you're out to lunch
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.