Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
what the wisconsin experiment suggests is if you have an awful diet reducing the amount of awful food you eat is a good thing right what the nia experiment doesn't tell us is the contrapositive it doesn't suggest that if you have a good diet eating less of that will help you live longer it might yeah but it isn't definitely well and so we don't know
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.