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.
rick johnson has talked about that and there are papers actually showing that the gout historically in the english monarchies was most likely related to the fact that they sweetened their alcohol with excess sugars not the fact that they were eating fruit
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.
yes because kings were the ones drinking alcohol that was sweetened with sugar and you know abusing those things as well so i don't think kings were getting uh illnesses or royalty was getting illness or chronic disease because of fruit or because of uh their their food choices for meat and organs but what they were drinking