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.
the only study that that I have seen in the literature that shows a detriment to this is in miles in the mouse model now this is kind of contrived because mice have mics have a new v GC and they had to do a knockout Mouse and then introduce the mouse with neu5gc antibodies and then present the mouse with neu5gc containing food and at this point the model becomes so contrived that i'm not sure that it's relevant for humans
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.
there isn't there are no studies there are zero studies in humans showing a danger for neu5gc