229
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2025
229 points (84.8% liked)
science
29296 readers
352 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
At the same time, a lot of places aren't going to let scientists test on something closer to humans without something clearly showing a reason for it. The ethics board would wonder why they didn't try it on mice first, and wouldn't approve anything else.
That they found an effect in mice would be good justification to move up a step. If there was no effect, then that would be the end of that.
I assume you went through the actual published article and have the necessary expertise to come to this "bullshit" conclusion.
I don't really know enough about mouse (and human) gut biome to know what the similarities and caveats are.
Garlic, onions, citrus and beans fuck up and can even possibly kill mice, so it's not a straight comparison by any stretch
Not what the research is about though, but good doing your own research
Those animals are pretty defenseless after they die and no one is immune to that.
You clearly don't get it. This is not about what they eat.
If you mix two chemicals, they react the same way. It doesn't matter if this happens inside a mouse or a human.
Their reaction to it might be different, which is what the article ponts out. But the gut biome still compares to what's inside a human, so if you introduce something like red meat, the measured reaction inside will be similar, even if it's not in their diet, like you shallowly point out.