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.
if you take a 50-year look at the change in type 2 diabetes prevalence so the snapshot i believe it's a five-fold difference in risk over 50 years the past 50 years so you go back 50 years ago and look today just the prevalence delta is 5x
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.
50 years ago the incidence of type 2 diabetes was in the ballpark of 1.5 to 2% so 1 and a half to 2% of people in the United States had type 2 diabetes today we're God I haven't looked in a while but it's over 10% and I'm talking clear type two diabetes I'm not talking about in the gray area of pre type two diabetes so let's just say we've had a five to Sevenfold increase in a condition over the course of one generation
50 years ago the incidence of type 2 diabetes es was in the ballpark of 1.5 to 2% so 1 and a half to 2% of people in the United States had type 2 diabetes today we're God I haven't looked in a while but it's over 10%