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.
fad is the other energy consuming substrate energy carrying substrate um and classically there it's shown in complex two and you can't the the body doesn't have a supply of fad or fadh2 it's almost invariably embedded in a protein you can't just take it out and shift it around you can't transport it in or out of a mitochondrion and you can't buy it off the shelf there's a reagent grade drug it's embedded in protein almost every instance i can think of
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.