Right, you should read it though, we're in the weeds over here, it's not just sort of free-assocating chat, we're picking apart specific things about the articl

Right, you should read it though, we're in the weeds over here, it's not just sort of free-assocating chat, we're picking apart specific things about the article. One of them, as I mentioned 4 up, is that the study with the 65% # is confounded because the groupings involve type 1 diabetes, and also, the number rebounds higher than the # who stopped