We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
claiming a study is old and for that reason you shouldn't look at it is pretty much Prima Facey evidence of a really bad argument in my point of view unless you have a good reason attached to that like you know it's old and they didn't have the appropriate testing procedure back then to determine this mechanism which is definitely the case often
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.