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.
i glossed over one other piece that i think is interesting on the environmental working group site which is the pfas contamination they have a map of the united states where these chemicals are found and where they're contaminating these are mostly flame retardants if you look at them i looked at austin for instance you find a lot of this is perhaps related to flame retardant foam from firefighting this is the type of thing that ended up in tumble chico water
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.