The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
And then what we did is we actually incubated TE-C cells from a blood sample in that liquid. And then the question was how do you get these protein RNA complexes into the cells? And we use this trick that's been around for a long time. No one even as as long as it's been around. Sounds magical and no one quite understands how it works. We put the cells into a device that gives a small electrical current to the tea cells.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
Electroparation. Oh man, I I during my graduate career, I electroparated a lot of Well, I can just say it now because I don't do it anymore. Um, electroparate a lot of brains of of intact animals. Yeah, You inject DNA. It's floating around in the in the local tissue. You pass some square wave current. Yep. And the assumption is that it creates little transient pores in the cell membrane and it gets in and sometimes you end up with four cells transfected and sometimes you end up with 40,000 cells transfected. It's a wildly useful technique, but it's a little bit hit or miss.