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.
so why why are you focusing on these mechanisms that oftentimes happen under unrealistic circumstances as opposed to hard outcome data that looks at things like actual thyroid function when eating what would be considered the upper end of reasonable quantities of these foods
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.
how is this criticism of the red meat cancer any different from you saying that these goitrogens are problematic in societies that have inadequate iodine intake or you know under certain circumstances where they're consuming incredibly excessive amounts of these goitrogens in their diet or in animal models that use isolated goitrogens to show that it has a negative effect on thyroid because to me it seems like you're you're applying a double standard to one set of evidence and you're not applying that same standard to the other set of evidence