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.
It is in a aqueous solution, so it's bacteria static water essentially. So it's not in a carrier oil. So it's going to burn a lot if you inject it subcutaneously. So it's going to be absorbed faster and more evenly and also just hurt a lot less if you inject it into a muscle.
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.
However, if you inject it too superficially, it's not going to make or break anything. Often, it just burns if you inject it subcutaneously and it does not disseminate throughout the body as well.
and you can only put so much oil subq or water sorry it's waterbased subq before you have lumps so even though it's more easily absorbed it's still not something you want to be injecting milliliters of like typically subq shots you want