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 one, again, out of Washington University by a different group that found that knocking down the levels of NAD in brain tumors slowed the growth of the tumor. And unfortunately the news story ended up being, oh, NAD causes cancer, which is not the same, right? That's the complete opposite.
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.
Um now um there are things that you can do with cell lines and in mice um where um you know it looks like some tumors could potentially be limited by NAD supply.