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.
Yes. So there's a few reasons why some modeling work that-- computational modeling work that first identifies where the 2A receptor is and then looks at-- models its basic effect on neural activity. Will recapitulate the-- or recreate the effect that we see actually in the data with the scanning.
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.
There is far more-- let's just call it interconnectivity or communication between brain areas that typically aren't communicating, which probably is not surprising to people given the subjective effects of these drugs.