this post was submitted on 12 May 2026
56 points (84.1% liked)
Science
7055 readers
159 users here now
General discussions about "science" itself
Be sure to also check out these other Fediverse science communities:
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Fair enough, I'm not an expert, but agree that you'd need far more evidence before making the bold claim.
Which is what proper peer review would conclude.
But how do you know that? I don't know what the reputable and predatory nutrition journals are.
It's not always obvious. Science journalists should know.
Science Daily, which is linked here, is well rated. cf https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/science-daily/ So you can hardly be blamed here. But this article appears to be bad reporting.
This article makes or repeat bold claims about treating a medical condition from an in-vitro experiment, without any measurement of the effect on actual humans. Not an expert, but my understanding is a clinical trial is necessary to draw conclusion about the effect on a medical condition in human.
Hopefully what they saw with a few cells in vitro can help prepare a medical trial with proprer controls. If and when such trial occurs, then maybe it'll be possible to draw early conclusions about a (probable) effect on medical conditions.