The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
when we look at the interventional research the biochemistry the interventional research is entirely clear that meat is not bad for humans the animal products are not bad for humans the animal products do not cause heart disease cancer etc
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.
when we look at the interventional studies of animal protein versus plant protein or interventional studies of animals animal models where animals are given meat we do not see problems and so the interventional studies is what we should really be looking at
interventional studies do not show harm with with meat
the epidemiology the observational studies surrounding meat weren't weren't the ones to focus on that interventional studies made sense and showed that meat was good for humans and improved outcomes