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.
But their functional ability, their ability to move their hand, it wasn't any different. And why is that? It's because the range of problems people have is so diverse. People have all kinds of other insults. The rats are all perfectly situated in the cage, they got exactly the lesion and all the rest. Why do the first few trials work? Because they were small, randomized trials with some, you know, confirmation bias, or some other things implicit to them.
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.
On stroke, which we talked about before, enhancing plasticity, you mentioned Prozac, fluoxetine is the name of the agent, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor increases serotonin, and has effects on brain-derived neurotrophic factor and all the rest. It looked really promising in animals. Many, many published studies did the same thing we did which is why we didn't think our thing was going to work. We took the therapy, which we know is helpful, practice using your paw that's injured, and then add the selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, and the animals made progress. And we did it again and again. We did it in monkeys, we did it in cats, we did it in rats, and then we did it in people. And lo and behold, the people got better. And then we did a large scale randomized trial, and it didn't do anything.