We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
i think it just shows the the magnitude of the problem that if you have a system that is so complicated with so inaccurate measurements with so convoluted and overtly correlated variables with selective reporting and biases superimposed you get a situation pretty much like what we described in the nutrients and cancer risk where you get an implausible big picture where you're talking about huge effects that are unlikely to be true
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.