>>11674856>I know, but I would feel much more confident in this if the work had been done the other way around (experiment by reputable people and statistical analysis by pajeets)I mean if it's any consolation, there are experiments done by the labs of nobel laureates that turn out to be unreplicable. biology is messy and you always have to wait for follow-up work before you can really tell whether any of the data is good. if you're lucky, you can replicate it in-house.
>do they really think big pharma won't find a way around a patent?it depends on what the IP is. if the IP is weak (like they found a human protein responsible, or a gene), then yeah they're wasting their time trying to get a patent on it.
>Also the fact that they want to sell "gels" and "patches" before the actual treatment is released leads me to think that the patent process is just there not to disclose their scamwell it stands to reason that they're gonna have to disclose their scam as soon as the patent application goes public.
I don't think this pre-print has earned 'breakthrough' status yet. but I'm not writing off their conclusions entirely since Horvath has earned his reputation in that field
