We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
Keep in mind if you're going to do any kind of inversion you are going to generate intracranial pressure if you're somebody and I feel obligated to say this because I'm a vision scientist and I worked on glaucoma for a number of years which is intraocular pressure if you have glaucoma or you're predisposed to glaucoma you're going to increase ocular pressure if you're inverted in that way or anyway
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.