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.
florane does not exist in plants in a native form because if we look at the biochemistry it is too oxidatively active so florane would cause oxidative damage to the plant and probably kill the plant um if it were active in the plant
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.
so for a fame is very oxidatively active meaning so for fame wants to move electrons around a lot in the body so the plants don't have so for a faint molecule they have gluco rafen n' so the enzyme myrosinase also exists in the broccoli and the defense mechanism is we see this in many plants you chew me this enzyme is gonna get this it's gonna act on this compound it's gonna make this toxic thing
so for feign which is an eye so thiocyanate and actually produced with a clear intention by the Brassica family of vegetables to dissuade animals from eating it it's a clear phyto election it's a clear plant toxin
so fluorophane is a pro-oxidant it's the plant's effort to dissuade you from eating it