Molecular biology is hard. The materials are difficult to work with, the equipment is sometimes problematic, the details are mind-numbing, and yet, all this reproduction study is, is another proof of scientific method actually working. Everyone working in it knows these issues.
For example...
>7) A major conclusion of this study is that many of the molecular studies of Poliseno et al., 2010 were not reproduced in this specific analysis. This is a conclusion supported by the data presented. However, this conclusion should be reported in the context of noting that reproduction has been reported in the literature (including citations). The failure to replicate could be due to the particular experimental conditions (e.g. state of cell confluence, transfection-related toxicity, etc), perhaps the use of different normalization standards, the large variability of some of the data reported here that might prevent the detection of significant differences, and differences in technical ability between the personnel doing the studies. These (and other) issues should be noted as caveats to the overall study reported here.>https://elifesciences.org/articles/51019#sa1>>13948236>>13948226Idiot. Unlike scientific research, your claims aren't backed by anything, they aren't reviewed, they aren't detailed; yet you publish them here. Your claims are hyperbolic bullshit, paranoid quibbles, expressions of a superstitious and ignorant mind, only able to formulate a thought by copying it from your preferred group-think vocabulary and worldview.
Your opinions are worthless, meanwhile science has been making life easier for you (for longer than 60 years), and I disagree with that approach, personally. I think people like you should be stuck under an iron bell in a deep ocean trench and made to mine minerals from the sea floor with a spoon the rest of your stupid life, but I don't get to be world dictator.
