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.
the study was debunked he lost his medical license and the paper was retracted right well he lost his medical license on the basis of the fact that the study was wrong or was there think he F the data there were that's why I recall as well that there was evidence of him literally making up the data right right so it wasn't a case of like sloppy technique it was a case of of intentional fraud right that's my understanding
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.