About
The Weight of Evidence takes health claims that circulate in podcast comment sections, submits them to the primary literature, and publishes the verdict — including when the claim holds up.
Who writes this
My name is Maurício Adamowski. I practised law in Brazil from 1995 to 2018.
Most of that work was not courtroom argument. It was reading a body of material — contracts, audits, filings, the other side’s own submissions — and issuing a reasoned finding about what it established and what it did not. Define the terms from an external source. Order the facts by date. Name the positions on the question. Find the contradiction inside the opposing text rather than around it. Write down what happens if the main reading fails.
I no longer practise. The method is the part I kept.
Why health
I played basketball and handball, trained jiu-jitsu, lifted weights. Nothing at a level worth naming — different things that kept me moving at different points in my life. Looking after my health was never a project. It was the default.
My mother has lived with chronic illness for more than forty years. I never wanted that for myself.
What follows from those two facts is a rule I have applied for a long time. If eating something is bad for me, I don’t eat it. If drinking something is bad for me, I don’t drink it. I also don’t take medication, and never liked to.
Why repair what is easier not to break.
That is why I listen to these podcasts in the first place. I am in the audience, not studying it.
One more thing, because this site adjudicates claims about exercise and you should know who is writing them. I am not training now. I have been sedentary for a while, and not because I stopped believing it matters. I am not the specimen here. I am the person reading the same claims you are, with the same distance between what I know and what I currently do.
My prior, stated on purpose
Read that section again and you will find a bias: prevention first, medication last.
It is precisely the bias that would corrupt a verdict on this material, because it is the bias most of this field already has. So I put it where you can see it and hold me to it.
The test is not whether I am neutral. Nobody is. The test is whether the verdicts go against me when the evidence does. The first episode landed on walking as something that helps alongside treatment and never as a substitute for it — which is not the conclusion my own instincts would have written.
Nothing on this site is a reason to change, stop or avoid any treatment. My own choices are mine. They are not a recommendation, and they are not evidence.
What I am not
I am not a doctor, a dietitian, or any kind of clinician. Nothing here is medical advice.
I am not practising law, here or anywhere. Nothing here is legal advice either.
I have no commercial relationship with any product, supplement, device or programme discussed on this site. There are no affiliate links on it.
What I do claim
That every figure here is traceable to a named primary source, and that every source is listed. That when a claim survives the evidence we say so as plainly as when it does not. And that when we get something wrong, the correction is published under my own name, dated, and left up.
The first correction is already there. It concerns our first episode.
How to hold me to it
If a reading here is wrong, bring the paper. The comments on the relevant episode are where that happens, and they are usually where the next piece comes from.