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.
We actually were partnered on three or four animal studies with Yuesheng Zhang and Rex Munday in New Zealand. And it was extremely impressive to see the difference in bladder cancer. [Rhonda]: Right, tumor size. [Jed]: Tumor number, tumor size and number.
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's been animal studies with bladder cancer where they give them some carcinogen and sulforaphane in it.
the rats were given sulforaphane they were given it before they were given a chemical that causes bladder cancer and the other group of rats were just given the chemical that causes bladder cancer and the rats that were given the dose of the sulforaphane um did not develop bladder cancer and one and if they did the tumors were much much smaller in size