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.
So, if you say, you know, avoid dyes cuz they're toxic, and you look in the back, and even if a dye isn't toxic, it's probably going to be alongside other things that aren't so good for you, like added sugars, like the the companies that are using these tactics are not going to be worrying about other things as well. And so, it kind of creates this like I would avoid these things.
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.