> Pitting a two minute reading vs months of work by a team of scientists is not a great move. > In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged,

> Pitting a two minute reading vs months of work by a team of scientists is not a great move. > In this case, the nature of the study is clearly acknowledged, it does not “change a lot of things”: > These findings are a starting point for further understanding, not something to be immediately ranked as true/false. Yes I know this and do not dismiss their research at all. I have been in the same boat, having to write at the end of a paper "We have proven a certain link between Y and X in this very limited experiment A, a wider, deeper research would be needed to prove if any such link exists in much larger condition B". This is normal, and how most scientific advencement is made. But look, I don't think the average HN user comes to this article and comment section thinking what happened when you put erythritol on a cell culture outside of a living organism. They care about what is the consequences of consuming erythritol on them. So a small clarification comment stating the 2 importants conditions of the experiment (cell culture + dosage) is usually useful if you don't have the time to read the whole study and if you came here just to know if you should stop consuming your favorite sweetened drink right now.