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.
Now I don't think that's true of most people. We're tracking people. I may have mentioned in the first part of study we saw nine people become diabetic as we've been tracking them and seven gradually became diabetic as though it was you know accumulation of something. But two people, one of which was me, something triggered it, meaning it kind of got there and stayed. It wasn't just a transient spike.
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.
but I didn't become diabetic until after a viral infection it's very strong correlation and because I measure myself a lot I figured this out as respiratory sensitial virus which uh actually you know it's not that common adults. It's more common now. But um anyway, I was literally in bed, which is a little unusual for me. I uh and I got a very high temperature uh and I wound up several weeks later becoming diabetic.