Tissue Nanotransfection I believe this is a hoax, either by

>>136523358
http://archive.is/kXHJs

>>136523645
thanks.

I mean, I'm sure you're all busy complaining about all the darkies out there takin yer wimminz, but don't you think that this suddenly being propagated by news bots (most news articles are actually written by AI these days) and being so far fetched is kind of... odd?

Don't you think this being an obvious MM honeypot should be examined?

This will be my final bump. Don't say I didn't call it.

current news agencies that have posted articles (presumably without vetting)

ABC
Medical Express
The Blaze
USA Today
The Columbus Dispatch
Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News
Telegraph
UPI
Medical News Today
Inverse
Daily Mail
Cosmos

>>136523358
Don't be so paranoic and negative.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-08-breakthrough-device.html

>>136524755
It's not real. genetic transfection is chemical, not electronic.

>>136524755
>Published in nature nanotechnology
Let me tell you how this will go: after the hype has died down a bit someone will attempt to replicate this study, probably the same lab, actually.
Then, when it's shown that the vascular cells that "appeared" in these mice tissues are actually not significantly different from an untreated mouse, and that the conclusions were drawn by fluffing the data and exaggerating the included pictures, the article will be quietly retracted.
Finally, it will be cited offhandedly in dozens of papers looking to buff up their bibliography and completely unaware of the retraction. This will happen over several years.
The end!

>>136525707
They should be reprimanded for being so careless in their readiness to publish something without appropriate re-testing.

and nature nanotechnology should be concerned about other things they've published as being bullshit, too.

>>136525897
Nature has a pretty high retraction/revision rating, or so I've heard.
Believe it or not, reproducibility is the biggest problem in modern scientific research right now, with a majority of published findings being unreproducible for reasons ranging from outright fraud to equipment temperature, but mostly because of incomplete procedures and methods.

I feel pity for everyone who espouses science as the end all be all. It's still conducted by humans, and humans do what humans do.

>>136526494
I do find it laughable that so many media outlets are mindlessly reporting this.

it will make a bad example of all organizations involved.

>>136526710

This is generally what happens when you achieve a certain amount of knowledge in a respective field. You'll begin to realise just how much rubbish the media will pass off as genuine fact that will inevitably be gobbled up by the populace.

It's quite frustrating. Don't expect a correction, at best I suspect it'll be retracted, at worst they won't bother. After-all, it was yesterday's news.

>>136523358

For whatever reason, there has been a steady steam of miracle medical news coming out of Britain for years and years. Every week it's something huge and none of it ever materializes.