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.
even when I try to explain to one of these friends what a microwave is um and why a microwave can't be harmful like why it you know you have to understand what a ionizing radiation is you have to understand what a light like if if microwaves are harmful then light is more harmful based on the wavelength but that's a hard thing to explain to people who don't understand science you can't see wavelengths right
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.