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.
It's not that you would be paralyzed if your cerebellum was gone because you still have motor neurons, you still have ways to talk to your muscles, you still have reflex centers, and it's not like you would have any sensory laws because you still have your cortex getting all of those beautiful signals that you can think about, but you wouldn't be coordinating things so well anymore.
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, you wouldn't be coordinating things so well anymore. The timing between input and output might be off.
Absolutely. The typical thing would be um a patient who has a cerebellar stroke or a tumor for example um might be um not that steady on their feet.