549
top 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SnarkoPolo@lemmy.world 194 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 67 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

[-] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 34 points 3 weeks ago

Aaaand thoughts and prayers!

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 weeks ago

gotta have some tots and pears!

[-] HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

And colloidal silver!

[-] compostgoblin 112 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

[-] sudo_shinespark@lemmy.world 60 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

Got evidence for that bold claim?

[-] Balthazar@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Whelks_chance@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Citation needed

[-] TachyonTele@piefed.social 11 points 3 weeks ago

Because the journal is so highly respected, half the papers are wrong?

What

[-] Prime@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 3 weeks ago

I'm a researcher. Nature is good but it still has mistakes. Sometimes they are a tad sloppy but they are still far, far better than what you may know from popular science. In general, some mistakes are normal and expected because science works by finding and fixing mistakes, not by immediately discovering ultimate truth. This applies even in math.

[-] Balthazar@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

I can agree with that. And I'm sure it's because letters on the forefront are published quickly without time to consider all the possible problems.

[-] thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org 6 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] prole 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Doubtful.

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

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Yeah that's just stupid

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

[-] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] P00ptart@lemmy.world 63 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[-] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

[-] null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com 49 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

I wonder which ones they kept.

[-] slaacaa@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] XTL@sopuli.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

Everybody knows that real science is peerless.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 12 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

My friend, this is part of the fascism.

[-] deathbird@mander.xyz 12 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 6 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] keegomatic@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks 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 3 weeks ago

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

[-] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago
[-] fossilesque@mander.xyz 1 points 3 weeks ago
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2025
549 points (100.0% liked)

Not The Onion

17407 readers
971 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