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.
at 27 18 into the podcast he's talking about a prostate cancer study with dairy which showed about 50% of the studies were associated prostate cancer and 50% were not so James then incorrectly says so you have a 50/50 percent chance of getting cancer from
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.
James is just using all the dirty boxing techniques but he got its so wrong about Darien cancer trying to say that you could equate an increased risk and a decreased risk and ignore every one where there's no association for the first 30 minutes