Rhonda Patrick· PhD
again we're deep like you said we're feeding 20 to 25 grams of omega-3 which is just out of control high there's no way you do that today there's no need to do that today
Loading…
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.
again we're deep like you said we're feeding 20 to 25 grams of omega-3 which is just out of control high there's no way you do that today there's no need to do that today
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.
there's been studies like like Bill did studies gosh back in a long time ago maybe the 1980s um giving people 30 grams of omega-3 a day and there was no negative effects and I don't remember how long I'm not saying that that there aren't I'm just saying that he had for the short amount of time that he did it there was not