4 ms·
Always learn a bunch when you comment on this stuff. It's hard to parse through scientific papers like this and tell how much they're exaggerating or hiding tha
by kaczordon 4y ago
Always learn a bunch when you comment on this stuff. It's hard to parse through scientific papers like this and tell how much they're exaggerating or hiding that someone else with more knowledge around this could see.
- timr 4y agoJust to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the authors are exaggerating or hiding anything. They seem to be making careful claims (and though I still have questions about the controls, this is well within the bounds of my own possible misunderstanding of the methods). I'm only pointing out the limits of what you can reasonably conclude from an experiment like this. Also, if laypeople look at the pictures of red cells and histograms and don't realize that "the infected half" are actually engineered to be susceptible, it's pretty easy to be misled. The poster is/was out on a limb with the title and the suggestion that this means something for humans. At most, it's a hypothesis that remains to be validated. It also makes a claim that contradicts a bunch of other papers (i.e that neurons get infected), so you have to take it with a grain of salt.