Hacker News Reader

Comment by cpncrunch | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Another study has already been done and failed to replicate this from what I can see.

Okay link it?

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.

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?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com