Andrew Huberman· PhD
what I needed to do was to occlude the other eye, the eye that was working very well. ... for me, they patched this other eye and made this eye, eventually, I got vision through that eye back.
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 I needed to do was to occlude the other eye, the eye that was working very well. ... for me, they patched this other eye and made this eye, eventually, I got vision through that eye back.
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.
Now, we don't reverse patch anymore. We give some drops. The eyedrops make it a little bit blurry. You don't have to block the eye entirely. You could just do a drop that slightly blurs the eye by opening the pupil up, and now, the eye that was sort of behind catches up.