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.
with every compound like let's let's have an honest assessment of harms risks and net benefit and then if we're claiming there's a net benefit let's try and substantiate the fact that that net benefit is something that's not redundant or that is actually beneficial for a human
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.
I think that we all have to make a decision whereby we weigh the benefits and the risks of these plant compounds if we choose to include them in our diets