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.
so if a visual deficit is in one eye only we know that it is in front of the chiasm correct and if it's behind that it should affect both eyes maybe asymmetrically but it should affect both eyes and that could be very helpful in localizing where a particular problem is
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.
at the pituitary there is something called the optic chiasm you probably remember where the the optic nerve is right some of the fiber half about half the fibers cross