4 ms·

Look, I'm more than willing to hear your opinion but I'm not going to dig for yours in a forum post. I took one look and immediately sent you that comment becau

Look, I'm more than willing to hear your opinion but I'm not going to dig for yours in a forum post. I took one look and immediately sent you that comment because those are opinions I do not even remotely share besides the last post of someone who linked a detailed newsletter talking about why this work is important. There is also a great re-cap of this work here: https://youtu.be/278vwGkFXRM?t=13406 https://youtu.be/278vwGkFXRM?t=13406

cpncrunch 3y ago
Fair enough, its always better to analyze it yourself and check the validity of any particular research or criticism of such research. Opinions in science arent really useful unless they are weakly held and based on the evidence. If you have any response to the main points i posted above feel free to post. As i said i have pretty much zero opinions on this, and have only looked at it very briefly. PS downvoting good faith discussion is bad form.
- thenerdhead 3y ago
  What are you saying here? That this entire paper and subject area is an "opinion"? I still do not know what your main points are here. This study isn't going to be replicated yet because it is considered a "breakthrough" and only two months published. It is going to have limitations because all studies do and authors disclose what they think are their limitations. Also I haven't downvoted anything for what it is worth.
  - cpncrunch 3y ago
    Another study has already been done and failed to replicate this from what I can see.
    - thenerdhead 3y ago
      Okay link it?
      - cpncrunch 3y ago
        It was in the s4me discussion. I think the more interesting question is why you put so much stock in a study you admit is exploratory, which you havent checked for validity.
        thenerdhead 3y ago
        Two studies that explore metabolic pathways in different ways. That doesn't mean they "failed to replicate". This happens all the time in science, especially EBV research. For example they failed to find EBV reactivation in long covid in one study, but then also found that it is a smoking gun in others. Aside that, what is your gripe with the Penn study?

cpncrunch 3y ago

Fair enough, its always better to analyze it yourself and check the validity of any particular research or criticism of such research. Opinions in science arent really useful unless they are weakly held and based on the evidence. If you have any response to the main points i posted above feel free to post. As i said i have pretty much zero opinions on this, and have only looked at it very briefly. PS downvoting good faith discussion is bad form.

thenerdhead 3y ago
What are you saying here? That this entire paper and subject area is an "opinion"? I still do not know what your main points are here. This study isn't going to be replicated yet because it is considered a "breakthrough" and only two months published. It is going to have limitations because all studies do and authors disclose what they think are their limitations. Also I haven't downvoted anything for what it is worth.
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  Another study has already been done and failed to replicate this from what I can see.
  - thenerdhead 3y ago
    Okay link it?
    - cpncrunch 3y ago
      It was in the s4me discussion. I think the more interesting question is why you put so much stock in a study you admit is exploratory, which you havent checked for validity.
      - thenerdhead 3y ago
        Two studies that explore metabolic pathways in different ways. That doesn't mean they "failed to replicate". This happens all the time in science, especially EBV research. For example they failed to find EBV reactivation in long covid in one study, but then also found that it is a smoking gun in others. Aside that, what is your gripe with the Penn study?