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.
in 1910 all of the fat we ate was animal fat and we certainly had some carbohydrates and people weren't getting probably as much liver as they should have been but all the animal all the fat we were eating in 1910 was animal fat and there was very low rates there were very low rates of heart disease and other issues and chronic disease and diabetes
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.