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.
boy there needs to be a referendum on how the media is taught how to interact with such studies on um you know how we scrutinize some of the methodologies behind these things because again you know checking a food frequency questionnaire once in an eight-year study it just doesn't mean anything it really it means less than nothing actually
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.
recall bias and I think many people are just shocked to learn how clunky and cloy nutritional epidemiology is I mean it's like when you think about all of the amazing technology we have in the world and you know you look at I mean we just recently uh did a podcast and you know talking about some of the most Cutting Edge uh tools Neuroscience that allow you to examine the behavior of a single neuron using Channel options and all these things like that's at one end of Science and at the other end of science we have this thing called a food frequency questionnaire