As noted elsewhere in this thread, which you seem not to have read, I discuss that matter in the article, which you also seem not to have read.

Not only have I read it, I know people mentioned in it. There aren't very many.

You read the article in which I discuss the matter you say I was unfamiliar with?

I'm responding to a random comment: I was in molecular biology, but >20 years ago. Your article immediately presents as someone who's acquired reading expertise in a biological/medical subfield. Second, your initial survey presents as a "brittle x": AB is the proximal cause all by itself; but, it can also be the secondary cause from many vectors. Diseases like that are (essentially) impossible to explain to the public. Also, the biological principle function is a standard trope for "good for X in the short run, bad for the person in the long run".

Thanks for these comments! The multiple pathways into a common entrypoint is definitely a challenge to communicate.

This form of hostile challenge is discouraged in the HN rules:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's fair. I responded to hostility with hostility. Perhaps I should have ignored the comment or just responded kindly despite the hostility.