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.
there was a total magnesium intake which looked at both dietary and supplemental sources and um that really didn't show any significant association with cancer mortality or cause mortality but there was a lot of what's called heterogeneity between studies
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.
the supplemental magnesium intake showed a nonsignificant positive association with cancer mortality risk based on three studies