Paul Saladino· MD
but we do not see this but epidemiology like you're suggesting is only good for generating hypotheses that's all it is
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
but we do not see this but epidemiology like you're suggesting is only good for generating hypotheses that's all it is
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 the problem is really jumping from uh you know basically nutritional uh epidemiology to policies or labeling or dietry guidelines and I think to me now we are at a point that the epidemiology should basically provide us with hypothesis to be tested in better controlled situation
I think the problem is really jumping from uh you know basically nutritional uh epidemiology to policies or labeling or dietary guidelines and I think to me now we are at a point that the epidemiology should basically provide us with hypotheses to be tested in better controll situation and maybe in domiciled with full feeding of people
I hope that we're not going to make policy only or policy or guidelines only based on the nutritional uh epidemiology but also on uh diet on studies basically testing some hypothesis related to what the nutrition uh epidemiology has shown