Andrew Huberman· PhD
My stance: everyone has different thresholds for action on scientific findings. For many, mouse work is sufficient, for others, no. People each need to decide for themselves.
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.
My stance: everyone has different thresholds for action on scientific findings. For many, mouse work is sufficient, for others, no. People each need to decide for themselves.
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.
There's some people that are perfectly comfortable with data from a mouse study. It's like, "If it's done in mice, great. I'll try it." Other people say, "No, it has to be done in humans." Double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. Randomized clinical trials, et cetera.