Andrew Huberman· PhD
when that tissue was damaged and you were paralyzed or you couldn't talk that there was no way to recover that those circuits were were dead uh it turns out that is not true
Loading…
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.
when that tissue was damaged and you were paralyzed or you couldn't talk that there was no way to recover that those circuits were were dead uh it turns out that is not true
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.
we know that there are ways of um promoting uh regeneration or recovery of function we're still working out the details of that but um for instance we've done studies and this is still in um clinical trial phase with patients who are years out from a stroke