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.
It's really complicated. Um, but it doesn't have to be. There can really be a lot more consensus than controversy if you can have this kind of exchange and explain some of the nuance behind it. And there really is a lot that we don't know. And so there's a room for a lot of different diets out there and you should find the one that works best for you.
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.
I think that there's there's a lot of nuance here and we do our best to show both sides of it and to show what's valuable about these studies and to show their shortcomings and then to show things studies which can complement these and perhaps suggest that some of them are extreme claims