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.
We have done this in a stroke models in animals using the methylene blue and we being able to rescue the majority of the of the damage producing the import in animal models and animal models where we look at this longitudinally using fMRI
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.
I hope that if somebody's listening to this who's involved in traumatic brain injury that someone ought to look into a clinical trial of using methylene blue as a rescue agent during periods of traumatic injury because again mechanistically it's at least plausible that you could salvage and rescue some of the transient insult and the damage that goes through that
if there is any insult that compromises metabolic supply to the brain you're gonna be better off infusing methylene blue with a low concentration we're talking about one milligram per kilogram concentration that is gonna be neuroprotective regardless of the sources it could be transients chemica tract it could be any stroke