549
all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 194 points 7 months ago

Just when I'm about to retire, Medicare will only cover chiropractors and horse paste.

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 67 points 7 months ago

"You appear sickly. It's because one of your humors are imbalanced. Have some bleach in your veins and get some fresh air to reduce the miasma."

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 7 months ago

demons release miasma, maybe rfk jr should ge tthat checked.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 34 points 7 months ago

Aaaand thoughts and prayers!

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 7 months ago

gotta have some tots and pears!

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

And colloidal silver!

[-] compostgoblin 112 points 7 months ago

I mean, correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t Nature and its subject-specific varieties considered some of the most reputable and prestigious scientific publications?

[-] Catoblepas@piefed.blahaj.zone 89 points 7 months ago

Yeah, getting published in Nature is a career gold star achievement. They’re very high impact (meaning many other scientific papers cite their articles).

[-] Balthazar@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.

[-] sudo_shinespark@lemmy.world 60 points 7 months ago

I’m dying at the irony of claiming 50% of all Nature articles are wrong while also providing literally no evidence

[-] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 44 points 7 months ago

Got evidence for that bold claim?

[-] Balthazar@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Anecdotal only, sorry. I'm sure it varies by field, and it's more about letters than longer papers. There are probably fields where Nature is excellent, but I know that there is at least one where the odds of a letter to Nature being accurate a few years later is about 50%.

[-] Dogiedog64@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago

Ok, so you got nothing, and you're talking out of your ass. Great, thanks. Go outside.

[-] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

Citation needed

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 7 months ago

tell me you have never read a Nature published piece, without saying you have never read a scientific paper

[-] prole 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Doubtful.

That said, you're kind of just describing how peer review works, no?

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Yeah that's just stupid

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago

Even if true (which I doubt since you present no evidence) that's still a 50% better error rate than RFK Jr and his band of cranks and quacks.

[-] Skua@kbin.earth 27 points 7 months ago

If we go by impact factor (a measure of how often the articles a journal publishes are cited elsewhere), various Nature publications are six of the top ten journals in the world and Nature itself is 15th

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 20 points 7 months ago

Yes. It's pretty much the definition of a high quality peer-reviewed journal.

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 7 months ago

To RFKJ the only reliable scientific sources are Facebook memes and the labels on quack cures.

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 63 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

"precious tax payers money shouldn't go to unused subscriptions to junk science"

Ahh yes, but it should be used to make the incomprehensibly wealthy, even more wealthy. I really wish there was a god.

[-] taiyang@lemmy.world 60 points 7 months ago

Did they just hear the term junk science and went "no u"?

This administration is so fucking frustrating, but it seems they want to remove any meaning of that word, the same way they always do.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 7 months ago

Did they just hear the term junk science and went "no u"?

That's EXACTLY what they did, yeah. Just like when they appropriated "fake news" which was originally a term describing their own disinformation.

[-] CitizenKong@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Which also nicely mirrors the Nazis calling everybody that contradicts them Lügenpresse.

[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nah, John Stossel was using it back in the '90s to deny climate change. The term "junk science" has always been used as an excuse to ignore reality.

[-] nebulaone@lemmy.world 54 points 7 months ago

The US is like a reality tv show, except it's less believable.

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 7 months ago

There must be (or ought to be) a term for this type of conspiracy that requires practically all experienced professionals in a given field to be complicit.

You could convince me that one or even a group of researchers were acting with nefarious intent, but everyone? It's just an absurdity.

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 26 points 7 months ago

It's pretty much the definition of the "grand conspiracy theory". It requires the combined effort of thousands of people across hundreds of countries. It's insanity.

[-] Bwaz@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Very much like a Protocols of the Elders of Zion theme, but with educated scientists rather than jews

[-] frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io 21 points 7 months ago

It's just a repeat of that AIDS conspiracy group that rejected evidence on HIV and made their own "science" mag which folded when everyone died of AIDS

[-] assembly@lemmy.world 34 points 7 months ago

So the modern approach to healthcare is back to leeches and blood letting huh. Did not have that on my 2025 bingo card but in retrospect I really should have.

[-] Blackmist@feddit.uk 32 points 7 months ago

Well at least we know which publication refused to capitulate to morons.

I wonder which ones they kept.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

Damn, what a bad ~~week~~ ~~month~~ ~~decade~~ century for US healthcare!

[-] XTL@sopuli.xyz 1 points 7 months ago

Was there a good ~~week~~ ~~month~~ ~~decade~~ century for US healthcare?

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

Everybody knows that real science is peerless.

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 12 points 7 months ago

They're probably already in the data set of whichever LLM they use to write their policy documents anyway, so sure, fine. 🙄

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

I'm not as concerned with this as I am with the fascism, because this will at least kill us indiscriminately

[-] prole 7 points 7 months ago

My friend, this is part of the fascism.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 7 months ago

its called pseudoscience=alternative science, naturopathy, homeopathy. he regularly consumes methylene blue.

[-] keegomatic@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

There is legitimate research on the effects of ingesting methylene blue. Don’t confuse that with pseudoscience. There’s probably plenty of pseudoscience around it, but it’s not (at its core) naturopathy/homeopathy/voodoo.

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 1 points 7 months ago

yes there is, but rfk jr consumes it in his drinks, he thinks that is valid enough.

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 months ago
[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 7 months ago
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
549 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

20532 readers
1827 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS