We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
so much of our thinking about epidemiology is based on nutritional epidemiology which John aya needies has recently described as I mean effectively garbage I mean I think he even went so far as to say that and if you know John he's quite measured in his words but I mean he's basically said there's no role for nutritional epidemiology
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.
I think it is the lowest form of human inference imaginable which is not to say it provides zero benefit but it's at the hazard ratios that these things typically come up coupled with the reliance on food frequency questionnaire is something I've even filled out myself just to prove how ridiculously useless they're like asking me what I ate two days ago not a chance I'm going to be able to give you anything within an order of magnitude of reality