this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
319 points (95.7% liked)

Science Memes

17369 readers
1325 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 90 points 13 hours ago (4 children)

There were plenty of articles claiming similar for her dogshit. Where's the peer reviewed studies?

[–] cRazi_man@europe.pub 61 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (2 children)

You think news headlines are concerned with inconvenient shit like evidence?

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 20 points 12 hours ago

Of course not. Just pointing out that it's probably bullshit just like previous similar claims. The exact thing its making fun of.

[–] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 6 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, they really should be. Imagine how much better everything were if news outlets could be hold responsible for spreading lies.

[–] stray@pawb.social 11 points 9 hours ago

I recently watched an educational video for young students where they said something like "Journalists are usually sources you can trust because if a journalist lies they will lose credibility and their job," and I don't think we're living in the same reality. Just because a particular news source doesn't publish blatant falsehoods doesn't mean they don't lie by omission or use manipulative wording, and that's not even getting into the ones that make money expressly off lying. I think maybe they don't want to teach people to question state propaganda.

[–] stray@pawb.social 12 points 10 hours ago

The article doesn't seem to be selling any particular technology, but rather sharing information on the fact that the research is currently in progress.

https://archive.ph/Yv7GN

The concept of identifying risk factors via blood sample has always been a good one. I'm not a scientist or medical professional, so I just assume the reason we're not sequencing everyone's genome is that it's not currently a good use of medical resources. I can't recall the name of this woman or her product, but my recollection is that she was claiming something currently impossible, not theoretically impossible.

[–] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 21 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

Her thing was supposed to work basically instantly, in a small box without a lab. This doesnt say anything about how that blood sample is actually tested.

[–] ch00f@lemmy.world 5 points 4 hours ago

Came in here for this.

Being able to do this at all is challenging, but building something the size of a bread machine that can be operated by anyone and maintains sterility on its own is something else.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)
[–] stray@pawb.social 3 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

I think the study they reference is the UK Biobank itself, which is ongoing.

More info: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4380465/