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.
nonetheless despite how safe they might be these surgical procedures still are surgical procedures and patients are hesitant to perceived especially when they know that their chance of a transformative effect is quite low we can generally achieve a responder rate of about 50 percent and responders still have symptomatic OCD
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.
but nonetheless, despite how safe they might be, uh, these surgical procedures still are surgical procedures and patients are hesitant to proceed, especially when they know that their chance of a transformative effect is quite low.
we we can generally um uh achieve a responder rate of about 50%. Um and responders still have symptomatic OCD.
Some would say this part of the brain is very safe to destroy. It's kind of like an appendix. Um, others would say it's safer to modulate.