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.
we used to use very sort of uh you know gross numbers like it's fully correctable if you can intervene before age three it's partly correctable if you can intervene before age six you got a chance before age nine but it turns out in followon studies that even kids into their young teens have a shot at correcting that eye brain connection that amblyopia that that loss of vision
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 even if you're only you know unfortunately detecting that later on in childhood or even sort of the tween years or early teen years it's still worth a try to really push to um retrain the weaker eye and then also realign the muscles so that they can work together to keep the eyes focused