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.
what does this mean in human terms you get a hit you get a rush receptors go down next time you need a bigger hit to get the same rush and the receptors go down and then a bigger hit and a bigger hit and a bigger hit until finally you get a huge hit to get nothing that's called tolerance and then when the neurons actually do start to die because chronic stimulation causes neuronal cell death that's called addiction
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.
what it does is it down regulates the receptor that means that there's less likelihood that any given molecule will find a receptor to bind to thereby reducing the risk for cell death