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.
the question that hopefully the research will help us understand is and i think this is not even really a major question but we can hopefully corroborate it with further research is how much of that is the absence of ultra-processed foods or the presence of other foods because if we need to be eating meat with certain plants we want to know that but if we don't need to be eating meat with certain plants we also want to know that because that helps people make certain choices
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.