Andrew Huberman· PhD
It is a risk of infection. These ports eventually have to become wireless in the future.
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 is a risk of infection. These ports eventually have to become wireless in the future.
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.
Yeah, it's a really good question and that's what the main problem with this early prototype um BCI and it's our group. There's other groups around the world that are using similar things primarily to show if you know it's possible actually to decode brain activity for uh useful purposes. So what's happening right now in the field is a lot of these technologies are now going to become wireless over time. But you're absolutely right. One of the main reasons is that we want to move away from the perccutaneous. We want to move away from the ports which are infection risks uh on top of other problems and uh move to things that are fully implantable uh fully wireless.
One of the main reasons is that we want to move away from the perccutaneous. We want to move away from the ports which are infection risks uh on top of other problems and uh move to things that are fully implantable uh fully wireless.