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.
type 2 diabetes uh we know that in the 19th century and presumably for all of history incredibly rare it was rising by 1935 this was the equivalent of the first in haines study um diabetes prevalence total was 0.37 percent so this is actually a big increase goes up to 0.91 by 1960 2.97 by 1991 6.95 by 2010 and 9.4 percent by 2015 this is a 25-fold increase in dive type 2
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.