Paul Saladino· MD
well animal foods don't have toxins like this right they haven't involved because animals can run away or bite you right
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.
well animal foods don't have toxins like this right they haven't involved because animals can run away or bite you right
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.
if you look at animals all animals essentially most animals are edible very few plants are edible it's a small percentage of plants that are edible for human beings but almost all plants the plants don't have the defense mechanisms that the animal has the animal's defense mechanism is it runs away from us like if you look at
the majority of plants not edible for humans but 92% haven't been explored for food so coming soon to you a semi digestible possibly partially toxic plant that no human has ever eaten that's crazy but guess what 99.9% of animals are edible by humans maybe 20 to 30% of plants are edible by humans there's no comparison almost all animals are edible by humans