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.
they dismiss the idea that it's not really causation and i got this idea once and i said you know what they're saying is if i measured everything well and i controlled for food intake and i controlled for diet composition and housing and socioeconomic status and genetic background then it would be okay
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.
we've got huge issues with confounding we've got huge measurement problems and so i think many people including me say no the status quo is not okay it's not just minor fine tuning we need reformation