Andrew Huberman· PhD
and what's interesting is that um in those instances where you see this genetic modification you do see lower blood levels in these genetically defined models
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.
and what's interesting is that um in those instances where you see this genetic modification you do see lower blood levels in these genetically defined models
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.
there's been m a handful of small studies where there has been some you know there's been some benefit Maybe no benefit Small effects we did a study that was a small study at Stamford and it was based on um Mouse genetic data and I'll I'll sort of walk you through what we did um so there's multiple Mouse models of these neurogenetic syndromes where um people have social impairment right we can Qui quibble about whether that's autism or not but that they have social impairment and so that there are this um fragile X Mouse there's a PR willly syndrome Mouse which is the magile 2 Gene that um gets manipulated and then there's a catnap two mouse and in all of those instances when you genetically modify those mice you see a reduction of oxytocin in the hypothalamus
what's really cool is you can give oxytocin across development in those models and at least in the cat to Mouse you can restore oxytocin neuron number to equivalent of control animals suggesting that oxytocin is doing something in these oxytocin deficient animals