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.
1914 text doesn't have anything about macular degeneration in it — 1927 sir stuart duke elder one of the most prominent ophthalmologists you know in history published his first comprehensive textbook of ophthalmology 1927. macro degeneration wasn't mentioned
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.
in 1895 hobb uh otto hobb published a paper in which he'd reviewed 50 000 ephthalmic patient medical records and determined that macular degeneration was as rare as traumatic maculopathy and myopic maculopathy