> The fact that the top commenter (as of this writing) sees this as "Star Trek levels of medicine" should clue everyone in.

Clue in on what exactly? That the current top commenter, and others - including myself - got baited? Hard to blame them, IMO. That's the effect when popular press is literally lying to people. :/.

(Also that's why I usually read HN comments even before the original article - in case there's an expert who debunks the story, which happens pretty often.)

>>Clue in on what exactly?

On the fact that it does sound too good to be true.

I mentioned Star Trek precisely because it stretched the limits of believability. Usually I'm pretty skeptical but, yknow what? Sometimes I want to be amazed. I feel a little silly that I took this article for granted, but I sure wish I lived in a world where I could take most articles for granted.

Thank you for providing a honest answer. Well intentioned mistakes combined with self reflective and vulnerable answers do not seem to require much criticism.