This has come up like three times in the last month so it probably deserves its own thread.
Spent an evening trying to actually read the papers instead of reading about the papers and it was humbling.
The gap between what the study measured and what people claim it showed is genuinely enormous.
Happy to be told I’m wrong, genuinely.
No replies yet. Be the first to add one.
Genuinely asking, not being difficult: what is the actual source for that? Everyone repeats it and nobody links anything.
Institute account. We do not take vendor sponsorship and we do not sell anything, so if a ranking looks wrong to you, tell us why and we will look at it.
Plausible mechanism is not evidence of effect. That distinction gets lost in about 90% of threads here.
Yes, and the same page has the older cycle for comparison.
What would actually change your mind here? If nothing would, it is not really an evidence question.
idk man the more i read about this stuff the less i trust any of it
Who funded the study though. That is usually the first thing worth checking and almost nobody does.
Happy to dig up the link if you want it.
VI VialData ·
Three anecdotes is not data. It is not nothing either, but it is not data.