• maculata@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Sorry that looks like bollocks. If they want to break down individual chemicals found in some plants used in CTM, into clinical trials then that’s fine.

    All I saw was jibber-jabber.

    Lack of plain speaking is a good sign that what someone is selling is hokum.

    • dgkf
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Which part sounds off to you? This looks like a very reasonable paper hoping to distill traditional medicine into viable research paths, and does it using a pretty interesting model of compounds and effects.

      If all you see is jibber jabber, maybe you should just default to trusting the experts on this one? Like, it’s not in an obscure journal - it’s a highly regarded peer reviewed journal. The authors aren’t random, they’re researchers at some of the best universities in the world (Nanjing University ranks #7 on the Nature Index).

      The abstract is about as plain-speaking as it gets in the world of cutting edge research. You can probably look up the handful of domain-specific terminology and have a good grasp at what the research is about.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      what I’m seeing here is that you’re not even capable of reading a basic scientific paper, bye