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 way to think about how healthy a food is is not to say does it contain toxins is to say what's the cost benefit analysis on this food and most importantly what are the empirical outcomes that we can see when it when it's directly when its impacts on health are directly studied
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.
the way to think about how healthy a food is is not to say does it contain toxins is to say what's the cost benefit analysis on this food and most importantly what are the empirical outcomes that we can see when it when it's directly when its impacts on health are directly studied
the way to think about how healthy a food is is not to say does it contain toxins is to say what's the cost benefit analysis on this food and most importantly what are the empirical outcomes that we can see when it when it's directly when its impacts on health are directly studied