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.
it turns out there's an advantage to having the trait for malaria right so it turns out that if you have one copy of the sickle Gene and the other one is normal you have normal looking red blood cells you don't get the disease but you get protection as you said from malaria so that would keep this propagating particularly in a malaria Rich area like Africa
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.
why does this disease exist why didn't Darwin get rid of this well it turns out there's an advantage to having the trait for malaria right so it turns out that if you have one copy of the sickle Gene and the other one is normal you have normal looking red blood cells you don't get the disease but you get protection as you said from malaria so that would keep this propagating particularly in a malar rich area like Africa