We can't find evidence that holds up here. Proponents are reasoning from mechanism or analogy rather than direct human data, and the most credible skeptics raise objections we can't dismiss.
However, I get an equal number of emails from people saying that they worked with some self appointed guide. This would be outside the clinical trials I was referring to, and they are now experiencing chronic visual, snow. They're getting genuine visual field deficits. They have havering ticks that they have never had before, they have chronic insomnia.
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.