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.
what they find is that for both groups there is no compelling evidence of what you would call a consistent reliable long-term clinically or public health meaningful effect on preventing obesity in either children or adolescence
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.
what Sumerell shows basically is not only is there no compelling evidence for effects but the there's reasonably compelling evidence that given the methods we've used today the effects are either zero or trivial