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.
Yeah, we try to use eat real food, I think, is one of sort of the axioms that we use in around our house. And I mean, is real a good enough descriptor? You can, it's sort of subjective, but like it's just trying to get at like this concept of the fact that people are trying to sell you fake things and you should be on the lookout for the realness of what you're putting in your body.
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.