alt Hacker NewsThe salient point of my comment is singular paper
The rational mind should not be seeing singular papers and assuming they’re correct. There are a lot of incentives for researchers to publish amazing results that benefit their career. They find ways to publish these through small sample sizes, p-hacking, or worse like faking results.
The amazing results usually disappear in larger studies by more rigorous researchers. There are so many papers showing amazing things in a handful of mice in a lab or even human volunteers that do not appear again in properly powered studies.
That's a fair clarification.
I never said we have sufficient evidence to act. But "too good to be true" + "singular paper" together can become an unfalsifiable dismissal - by that logic, every important result looks suspicious before it replicates. The interesting question is what priors should update our confidence here.
Stanford/Arc Institute and published in Nature + mechanistic grounding + prior research on gut-brain axis gives me way more confidence than average, but you're right, that's not nearly enough for most, but quite sufficient for me, and surely others with informed priors or a strong motive.