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.
And so we need to be aware that this is funnable and that's why in in the research like like when I was doing my PhD for example and also studying in Lancet, we didn't use a machine like this because we can't even get IRB approval to do a study and use this in the hospital settings.
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.
Don't don't ignite. Don't form water in your in your uh you know, in your ethmoid sinus, you know. You don't want to form water in your face and blow it up. But you have to be careful with that.