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.
Well, we found that in a region around the facial nucleus, so we initially, when this region was initially identified, we thought it was involved in sensing carbon dioxide. It was what we call a central chemo receptor. That is, we want to keep carbon dioxide levels, particularly in the brain at a relatively stable level 'cause the brain is extraordinarily sensitive to changes in pH.
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.
And then we identified a structure that was near the trapezoid nucleus. It was not named in any of these noranatomical atlases, so we just picked the name out of the hat and we called it the retro trapezoid nucleus.
The way to regulate something in the brain is you have a sensor in the brain and uh others basically identified that the vententral surface of the brain stem that is the part of the brain stem that's on this side was critical for that. And then we identified a structure near the trapezoid nucleus. It was not named in any of these nor anatomical atlases. So we just picked the name out of the hat and we called it the retroroid nucleus.