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.
the suggestion that omega-3s might protect the heart came more than 40 years ago when scientists found greenlandic inuit had very high blood levels of omega-3s and virtually no heart disease this has been attributed to their diets which are rich in fatty fish and seafood providing a source of epa and dha
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.