18 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 55.2 ms ] thread
Obligatory: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzvktk

"We're thinking this is a lab error because these three are found only in sharks"

"Bond #4 has eaten through its beaker"

"I don't know how you got it, James, but you have 107 different venereal diseases."

From the article, "We found evidence for a total of 59 liaisons (mean of 2.4 per film)."

Title contains spoliers? :( Can it please be adjusted? Not everyone has seen this movie because of covid restrictions (and I have been actively trying to avoid spoliers on the net).
> Title contains spoliers?

No it doesn’t

Source: seen the movie

The "study" has nothing to do with the latest movie, other than using its title as a pun.
> Title contains spoliers?

No it doesn’t.

Source: saw the movie

isn't that a spoiler?
Yeah, now we know that nothing in the article happens in the movie! Who wants a Bond movie without sex and deadly airborne diseases? Not me.
> Yeah, now we know that nothing in the article happens in the movie!

Original poster was complaining about the title. Not the article contents.

I wouldn't worry, watching Bond isn't about really about the plot, it's about the action. If you want a good spy plot then Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy would be a better bet.
Looks like a great excuse to watch every Bond movie. For science.

Well played.

On the topic of sex hazard, while lying on a metal table under a encroaching laser beam, Bond almost had a vasectomy.
> We uncovered above-average sexual activity, often without sufficient time for an exchange of sexual history, with a remarkably high mortality among Bond's sexual partners (27.1; 95% confidence interval 16.4–40.3).

"You clean? - Yeah. You? - Yeah" has always worked for me. Knock on my wood.

This thing is a masterpiece. I can confirm no spoilers for the current movie.
"There was no specific funding for this project. Given the futility of its academic value, this is deemed entirely appropriate by all authors."

Made me chuckle.