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:

https://lemmy.ml/c/science

https://beehaw.org/c/science

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Fair enough, I'm not an expert, but agree that you'd need far more evidence before making the bold claim.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Which is what proper peer review would conclude.

[–] Gsus4@mander.xyz 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

But how do you know that? I don't know what the reputable and predatory nutrition journals are.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

Although additional studies in animals and humans are needed to confirm these effects, this work provides a clearer explanation of how everyday foods and natural compounds may help regulate chronic inflammation. Over time, this could play an important role in supporting long-term health.

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.