Paul Saladino· MD
Those are silly and help no one.
We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Those are silly and help no one.
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.
epidemiology cannot answer this question so I if I were king I would outlaw the media sharing studies that can't tell us the thing that they're trying to study these are hypothesis generating studies
many of the things that we have that are told to us about the negative qualities of meat are observational epidemiology they're not actually experimental
I think that the main reason that people are so confused and just is that if you look at the evidence that they bring forward it gets to be a little nuanced but they can only provide epidemiology studies