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.
I mean I think that like humans have always known this is good for them and it's only recently that we've become so confused that we think this is not good for humans or that people in Greece or other places where they live a long times don't eat this you know we we are trying to change our way of life because we think that the meat is not a gay or fish is not a gay or but I think that I said to you before that the way that we are living is wrong not the meat exactly
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.
people believe that animal fat is bad for them but I don't think it's bad for humans at all
The animal fats that humans have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years are tried and true.