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.
for example there's when the pathology when the bad stuff goes to the back part of the brain that's where the visual fibers are so the eyes are in the front but they have visual projections that go to the back you interpret images well when someone can't interpret images they get confused they they act funny they may be weird they may be you know confused but it's not exactly a memory problem it's a it's a visual perception problem
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.