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.
so there's a series of papers back in 2003 in 2004 that led to the the mitochondrial hypothesis for type 2 diabetes the big question still to this date almost 1516 years later is is that actually causal for the diabetes or is it just an early epiphenomena
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.
the mitochondrial hypothesis for type 2 diabetes the big question still to this date almost 1516 years later is is that actually causal for the diabetes or is it just an early epiphenomena