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.
we must consider the fact that the intention of these plants is clear these are negative compounds in our health and are they going to affect everyone's health negatively no certainly not there are some people who may have enough iodine in their diet to be fine with it especially the most toxic defended parts of plants that are not really improving our health as humans
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 i just i see it over and over and over that mechanistically biochemically there are so many these defense chemicals that are that are not intended to be good for humans and that appear to have very negative effects for us