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.
I do take some of the things that we talk about on the podcast to do some focused work, sometimes alpha-GPC, but lately I've been doing this whole thing of cold water exposure to spike my adrenaline, 'cause I hate it, and it spikes my adrenaline after learning based on the McGaugh and Cahill data.
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.