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.
so let's start with the front end let's start with nitrogen in so that's basically you just take a a bunch of food and you do an chemical analysis and you measure the nitrogen and you multiply it by a factor of 6. 25 so a you're measuring nitrogen it's not really protein it could be nucleic acids it could be anything with nitrogen you're calling it protein and then you're multiplying it by 6.25 which says I believe that protein contains 16% nitrogen which also isn't always true
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.