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 what concussion is is a mismatch between demand and supply of energy to the cell now this is not enough to cause cell death while area and degeneration there's no structural changes to the neuron there's no depth of the neuron but the cells struggle to operate at their normal efficiency
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 what concussion is is a mismatch between demand and supply of energy to the cell now this is not enough to cause cell death while area and degeneration there's no structural changes to the neuron there's no death of the neuron but the cells struggle to operate at their normal efficiency
the important thing at this point is we don't feel the cells die from this they're just operating at a different level of efficiency and what we literally see happen with this is different systems in the brain that require a lot of energy don't work as efficiently and they will literally decompensate from that energy problem