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.
I love — that you weave your math and statistics and probability — theory background into all of this because what comes through is — intense curiosity intense rigor and a real desire to do good
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.
exploring you know things that are really disruptive to our health and potentially to the existence of our species as um you know as we talked about earlier there is the possibility that we go extinct — not because of a meteor but because we fail to replace ourselves — and that we fail to replace ourselves because we destroy our biological ability to replace ourselves
Shanna Swan was on this podcast. And, gosh, if it wasn't for her and her incredible work and the fact that she's such a skeptic of any data, I don't think people would respect the data on pesticides as much as they do.