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.
It's really interesting because we know that if a person loses their sight for x number of years, I'm guessing that the occipital lobe doesn't work the same way. It's not processing the information. So, it I don't know that it actually physically atrophies, but I'm guessing that it's not it's not the neurons aren't firing the same way.
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.