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.
so another way to test is that not the hairs of the hair is a hair mineral analysis test and that's when they test the hair for mercury and other heavy metals and the thing with that is once again mercury for instance stores mostly in your brain and you can't get in there to see what's actually coming out and so it doesn't come out in the hair
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.
he specifies that the hair mineral analysis is actually probably your best bet but you have to look at the minerals because the heavy metals won't always come out of into the hair unless there's current exposure and it's in the blood so if you look at the minerals and there's certain ways of telling okay if there's certain derangement in the minerals that tells you whether or not you're mercury toxic