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.
then people are left trying to dream up mechanistic explanations by which compounds in red meat may be harmful to the gut which really fall apart upon detailed examination there really are no mechanisms by which red meat would harm the gut not heme iron not nitrocephales
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 really are no mechanisms by which red meat would harm the gut not heem iron not NR thols