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 minnesota coronary survey was not the findings came out and remember this is an nih study so you're supposed to publish your results they were not published for 16 years 16 years when they were published they were published in a very sort of obscure journal that most nutrition scientists don't read called atvb and um ancel keys was not on the paper
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the study goes unpublished it's not published until 1989 16 years later France publishes it when asked why he said quite plainly we didn't like the way it turned out