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.
your story is uh has some features of uh you know totally usual how we think about misaligned eyes leading to amblyopia where one eye is weaker patching the strong eyes to the weak eye can recover but not necessarily fully regaining depth perception and so that part of it is you know quite stereotypical
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.
for different parts of that ibrain connection there's different periods for critical period plasticity for example even if you get the amblyopic eye to see well again and then you realign the eyes and now they're working together a lot of kids will never recover full depth perception stereopsis the use of two eyes to see depth for example