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.
there's literally hundreds of these different toxic aldehydes and these are collectively cytotoxic genotoxic mutagenic carcinogenic atherogenic uh obese and obesogenic there's uh i think i left something out but they are collectively in extremely small amounts extraordinarily uh toxic and mutagenic and carcinogenic and driving all of this chronic disease in and of themselves
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.
and or they're being converted into toxic aldehydes pathophysiologically in our bodies and these are very very dangerous chemicals that extremely in extremely small amounts things like 4-hydroxy known and all which is 4-h and e-maladaldehyde or mda uh um nine and thirteen hoed uh carboxyethylpyrol acrylene