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.
there is good epidemiologic evidence in cohorts of people who live in regions of the world where they are getting more boron versus less boron that there are significant benefits the most widely studied is with regard to arthritis
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.
epidemiologic evidence that in areas of the world where boron intake is less than one milligram or less per day the estimated incidence of arthritis ranges from twenty to seventy percent that's a lot of arthritis whereas in areas of the world where boron intakes are three to ten milligrams the estimated incidence of arthritis ranges from zero to ten percent that's a lot lower
they note that these findings included a analytical evidence of lower boron concentrations in femur heads bones and synovial fluid from people with arthritis than from those without this disorder