you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 4 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Which is what proper peer review would conclude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months 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.

  • source
  • parent