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 they discovered was that even in terminally ill or or and some of these people were uh quite old those people were still generating new neurons especially in the context of still trying to learn and and acquire new information
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.
Um but I do remember one study that I don't think is contested which is the work of Rusty Gage at the Sulk Institute where they actually injected a a sort of die type marker into the brains of terminally ill humans who very graciously offered to have their brains removed and dissected after death. And in these very in some cases very old >> terminally ill humans they did see evidence for new neurons being born in the hippocampus.