Direct evidence is thin. The claim is plausible and aligns with adjacent findings, but there isn't yet a body of high-quality work that would let us call it well-supported on its own terms.
for example even if you get the amblyopic eye to see well again and then you realign the eyes and now they're working together a lot of kids will never recover full depth perception stereopsis the use of two eyes to see depth for example so why that part of the brain doesn't correct as well as the visual Acuity or central vision part of the brain I'm not sure if we understand that yet
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.