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.
age matters if you take out half of the brain in a very young baby that baby has a reasonable chance of developing High a high degree of function by having the remaining half subsume some of the functions lost on the other side because they're very very young and their brain is still developing it's a it's to some degree a blank slate with extremely high plasticity over many years so that can overcome a lot of deficits
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.
it has to do with plasticity and — we all wish we were neonates or infants because — the body including the brain is so plastic that's the ability to regenerate tissue and circuits and recover so if an infant has a stroke and is paralyzed on one side usually they can make an excellent if not complete recovery