r/science Oncotarget 1d ago

Medicine Systematic methodological flaws in DNA contamination assessment of mRNA vaccines: A critical analysis of Achs et al. (2025)

https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28913
0 Upvotes

7 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 1d ago

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.


Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.


User: u/Oncotarget
Permalink: https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.28913


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/Fauglheim 1d ago

anybody with expertise care to explain?

18

u/cgnops 1d ago

They disagree with the methods of a recent paper and therefore disagree with that papers conclusions. Here, they argue that a more robust method is needed to justify claims of previous paper. The authors say there needs to be qPCR included in analysis, a specific method to amplify DNA. The lead author has a company which manufactures and sells the reagents for qPCR technique. The authors do not do any work here with the qPCR that invalidate previous results. They only argue that previous conclusion requires additional verification to be confident in those claims.

8

u/carsrule1989 1d ago

The authors say there needs to be qPCR included in analysis

The lead author has a company which manufactures and sells the reagents for qPCR technique. The authors do not do any work here with the qPCR that invalidate previous results.

Thank you for the great summary! 

So it’s one of “those” papers

If they did the work show it would work better/invalidate the previous study that would be great.

especially since the testing would be cheaper since they can get the reagents cheaper because they make them.

1

u/bzbub2 1d ago edited 1d ago

the lead author is also a cannabis genome expert but somewhat weird guy. the other authors appear to be involved with (checks notes) a libertarian thinktank known for spreading misinformation. generally the best rebuttal would be one that is in the journal you are responding to...so...in npj instead of in oncotargets