Paul Saladino· MD
we make the case that these insidious entry that the insidious entry of non-protein amino acids into the human food chain and the incorporation of the protein might be contributing significantly to neurodegenerative damage
Loading…
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.
we make the case that these insidious entry that the insidious entry of non-protein amino acids into the human food chain and the incorporation of the protein might be contributing significantly to neurodegenerative damage
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.
some of these non-protein amino acids essentially defense chemicals by very very savvy plants trick these trnas into carrying their amino acid which is not actually supposed to be in the protein in place of the amino acid that should be there and that leads to proteins with the wrong amino acids that don't fold properly and that may be at the root of neurodegeneration