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.
there are many plants that contain chemicals that are to have negative effects on animal human physiology whether it's cassava or goitrogenic compounds in brassica vegetables and the question is why would we eat those vegetables why would we even negatively affect thyroid function or any of the other potential issues with isothiocyanates when we could get all of the nutrients from those things from other foods like animal foods animal meat and organs etc
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.