• T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Taleya@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        Garlic, onions, citrus and beans fuck up and can even possibly kill mice, so it’s not a straight comparison by any stretch

            • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              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.