>>12977368That shit is so true and it's weird as fuck.
>people talking about vaccines like they're experts on the mechanisms>mention some basic first year first term concept>"what's that Anon?"Shit happens non-stop for anything medical related.
>see people complain about scientists using "absurdly obscure" terms such as mmol when referring to drug concentrations??? Why the fuck are laymen convinced they can understand any paper they look at just from reading the abstract. Maybe reflect on yourself that if you can't understand what mmol is or why mmol is the relevant unit to use when looking at drug concentrations then maybe you're not the target audience of a text.
And I'm one of those fags who strongly pushes for people to simplify their writing in articles, so this isn't even some elitist thing. Reading 20th century articles are so much more comfy than late 20th century and 21st century articles where there's an increasing trend to distract with jargon so that nobody can notice that your article is about nothing and you've no confidence in your results or expertise.
