Researchers from Pritzker Molecular Engineering, under the guidance of Prof. Jeffrey Hubbell, demonstrated that their compound can eliminate the autoimmune response linked to multiple sclerosis. Researchers at the University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) have developed

Researchers from Pritzker Molecular Engineering, under the guidance of Prof. Jeffrey Hubbell, demonstrated that their compound can eliminate the autoimmune response linked to multiple sclerosis. Researchers at the University of Chicago’s Pritzker School of Molecular Engineering (PME) have developed

  • adj16@lemmy.worldEnglish
    213·
    1 year ago

    Honestly, this is a fair response to an outrageously sensationalist headline. There is promise in this particular style of vaccine, and it deserves further research, but to claim it’s going to cure all these disorders is something so far from the current truth that it really verges on an outright lie.

      • theneverfoxEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        They added subtlety and made a point, you just reacted skeptically to a headline

        If you’re surprised by this, you should really put more thought into why your post went negative

          • theneverfoxEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Ok? But like… I don’t know how to say this without sounding harsh, but why would I care that you scoffed when you read the headline?

            You were expressing your feelings, but that’s all your first post did. Hell, it’s not immediately clear exactly what you disagreed with. Is the science bad? Is the site untrustworthy? Is the article bad? Or is the only problem that the headline is clickbait?

            At least if you said “this headline is bullshit”, someone could have either agreed and moved the conversation towards what the headline should have said, or they’d say “no, it sounds crazy but this is actually legit”

      • adj16@lemmy.worldEnglish
        53·
        1 year ago

        Yours being in the negative is the whole reason I responded to it, actually. I was hoping my context could make people see that yours was the appropriate stance for those who aren’t hopelessly naive. Sorry it didn’t work!

      • stopthatgirl7@kbin.socialOP
        21·
        1 year ago

        Because there’s a difference between “dismissive” and “skeptical.” Your comment was dismissive whereas adj16’s was skeptical.