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.
why is that gene there because it has survived 3.8 billion years of natural selection it has a purpose so does the cholesterol your genes know what they're doing a lot better than your MD who was done probably eight years of study to be a name and indeed your genes have done 3.8 billion years of study you know they know what they're doing actually you know if you know you know then therefore that's there for a reason it's it's vital it's very very important
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.