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.
So these funny extra photoreceptors that are in the wrong layer doing something completely different are actually using a chemical cascade that looks much more like what you would see in a fly photoreceptor, than what you would see in a human photoreceptor, a rod or a cone for example.
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 these funny extra photoreceptors that are in the wrong layer doing something completely different are actually using a chemical cascade that looks much more like what you would see in a fly photoreceptor, than what you would see in a human photoreceptor, a rod or a cone for example.