1 comment

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 1 year ago

Wtf you guy

  • source
  • 74 comments in c/nottheonion@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 204 points 1 year ago (8 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 73 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    "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."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 176 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    Kennedy is a germ-theory denier who believes people can maintain their health not by relying on evidence-based medicine, such as vaccines, but by clean living and eating

    I fucking hate this timeline

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 89 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Clean eating, like park bear and whale carcasses!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 36 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    No wonder he got that brainworm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    He used to pop the eye balls out of birds heads and eat them raw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)
    1. fucking why?
    2. how did you learn this abomination?
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Even if he believed that, why isn’t he calling for more regulation oversight for the FDA and stringent quality controls on the food production supply chain as a whole?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Clean living in his view just means focusing on "natural" things. Which means swimming and drinking shit water is safe, but anything "artificial" is dangerous. So he's certainly not going to care about pathogens in the food supply, because he doesn't believe they are dangerous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    This is all going to be covered by a snarky longform YouTube (or equivalent) documentary in 200 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • [–] 60 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 41 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 115 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 1 year ago (18 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] -73 points 1 year ago (17 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 45 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Got evidence for that bold claim?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -45 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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%.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago*

    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%.

    ...

    you know, there is a difference between "getting published in Nature" and "submitting your work to Nature". It's subtle, perhaps: one involves being published in the journal. For the world to see and scrutinize.

    I bet they get lots of letters that they do, indeed, find aren't well substantiated enough to publish.

    Also, one field. Lmao.

    Also, please tell me why you made your first comment, I'm genuinely curious. Did you read about this somewhere? Where, if you recall?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    that sounds like the dumbest horseshit I've ever heard of, both because an educational journal is built on its reputation, and because even if it were true, you'd still be wrong to imply that's a bad thing for a different reason: proving some other guy wrong is part of the process.

    let's assume -- even for a brief moment -- you are, in fact, 100% correct with this claim.

    You're almost definitely not, but hey, let's assume.

    scientists are all about being right, so much so that they loathe their own frauds (watch some BobbyBroccoli documentaries if you don't believe me), and they also take extreme pleasure in disproving each other. sometimes, good science is in trying to disprove what some other guy or some other team said because "I want to be right/I want that fucker I hate to be wrong (we're all petty humans, even scientists)/I want us to understand the world better, and we need to know if this is in fact as they claim". Peer review is ingrained in their doctrine, that's what good science is. You think if someone, a person with enemies, competition, and friends alike, got their paper in one of the most prestigious educational journals in the world, someone, somewhere wouldn't be going "nuh-uh! I bet I can prove otherwise!"? And at that point it's two scholars betting their career dick to swing around that they're right and the other guy's wrong, unless of course peer review actually means that prestigious journals generally don't publish horseshit.

    in short: your claim is not only wrong, it is... a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works as a concept, I feel? Maybe not always in practice -- there's always politics sticking their dick into the mix to muddy the waters -- but that's part of what these journals pay and charge for. Prestigious peers. To review papers and generally make sure that nothing they publish is outright bullshit.

    now, are they fair prices for knowledge that helps us all is another debate, but suffice to say: going "fuck you I'm gonna find out if you're wrong" is literally part of the job.

    Are you just, like... not that bright? Or is this just a transient phase, a hard night for you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    the problem with this is you wrote an epic takedown. it took you so much more time and effort that the pigshit you replied to.

    this world isn't fair.

    but you deserve more, you nailed it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    it's not about a takedown, really, I'm not trying to be mean (not especially hard, anyways), I just want to understand what Nature, or science as a whole, did to piss them off enough to make shit up about it. Or if they're just having a bad day they oughta just say so.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

    What

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 1 year 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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 55 points 1 year ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 49 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 1 year 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.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago

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

    I wonder which ones they kept.

  • source
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    Everybody knows that real science is peerless.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 1 year ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

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

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago
    [–] 2 points 1 year ago
    10 comments in c/science@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Isn't Nature one of the most reputable science magazines..

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago

    Yeah, it's generally between Science and Nature in terms of greatest publication prestige. Most scientists work their butts off to get their works published in either of those, only to get their work desk-rejected and ultimately published in "less prestigious", field-specific journals.

    That's not to say the Science and Nature are the end all be all of scientific journals; there are many journals specific to each field that is also prestigious.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 1 year ago

    How is any of this real life?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Bad for the department, good for science. We need a better way to publish papers.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    These nazi idiots are destroying US science, there is no upside. Reasonable people COULD have setup a controlled transition to some sort of public peer review and publishing system, but instead they are going to not do any of that and now RFK can continue to just post their garbage ChatGPT written fake reports on hhs sites directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago*

    Translation: the health department has been taken over.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Where does swimming in sewage fit into his "clean living" plan?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    MAGATs are junk humans.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Down with Elsevier! Everyone publish to SciHub! Am I right?

    Right?

  • source
  • 5 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post
    [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    They wrote bad things about worms. They targeted us, US!

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Arrrrgh, he’s so right about the corruption part, but no way can we now trust the in- house journals now.

    JFC, American institutional scientists are ineffectual morons.

    I have witnessed literally decades of hand wringing about the broken publishing model and no one with any position of power would sanction or support development of real alternatives.

    RFK is Lysenko to the power of Goebels. But my ire is currently directed at every hidebound academic administrator and PI who propped up Nature group. You let this happen through inertia and cupidity.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Ladies and Gentlemen, the party of "facts and not emotions", unlike the libtards.

    Only facts coming out of christian bible.

    Hallelujah!!

  • source
  • 1 comment in c/science@mander.xyz view that post
    [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    Journal publishers can be a totally horrific, exploitative racket and we can still need the articles they publish to do science, YA FUCKIN' CHODE.

    While broken clocks can be right twice a day, I feel like this guy is a broken clock who only manages it once because his logic is so damn bad.

  • source