Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
the ADHD fish oil story is a little the opposite and it's been it's almost everything with ADHD it's been kids that have been most strongly looked at the first few studies with fish oil and kids didn't show any benefits at all and then subsequently there have been several studies that looked at benefits and again in the field jumps to the second set without reconciling well how do we you know do a good meta analysis with everything in there or so
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.