“In mice” is a very important lesson to learn about scientific reporting, but it’s also a very simple and reductive lesson. Most experimental results don’t translate to human studies. That’s it, thats the lesson to learn.

So, maybe someone here doesn’t know that, but it adds so little to the conversation to just repeat this widely known fact over and over again.

Now, let’s talk about the mouse models. Some models are better than others. Many experiments are conducted in mice that don’t have an immune system. Some mouse models have a “disease” that bears very little resemblance to the human condition and was induced through means that are very different from the human natural history. Some mouse models have a genetic defect in a gene that is very well conserved and mimics symptoms of the human condition and are thus excellent models that can tell us a lot about human physiology. All that nuance is lost by “in mice”, which makes it particularly frustrating when that’s used as a blanket reason to dismiss any mouse study.