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.
but the lens is just incredible. The fact that it has a specific structure of proteins like crystallines and things of that sort and that it can still derive nourishment from blood flow but does not actually have vasculature within it.
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.
So it's not-- if you notice the lens of your eyes and filled with blood vessels and capillaries because it needs light to pass through, super interesting structure I think the only violation of what I just said is the manatee.