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.
the deficient will obviously get more exactly like you could sort of see a see a scenario where somebody's like a vegan and a huge benefit obviously then you might see well maybe the risk is worth the payoff but if you're an omnivore who happens to eat red meat I don't know maybe maybe it's less so
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.
it depends on their Baseline circumstance too the deficient will obviously get more exactly like you could sort of see a see a scenario where somebody's like a vegan and there a huge benefit obviously then you might see well maybe the risk is worth the payoff but if you're an omnivore who happens to eat red meat I don't know maybe maybe it's less so
the deficient will obviously get more exactly like you could sort of see a see a scenario where somebody's like a vegan and there a huge benefit obviously then you might see well maybe the risk is worth the payoff but if you're an omnivore who happens to eat red meat I don't know maybe maybe it's less so