• captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 hours ago

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

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    15 hours ago

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

    I wonder which ones they kept.

  • taiyang@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    ·
    1 day 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.

    • WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours 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.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      1 day 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.

  • Nurse_Robot@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    165
    ·
    1 day ago

    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

  • compostgoblin@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      84
      ·
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        73
        ·
        1 day ago

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

        • sudo_shinespark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          53
          ·
          1 day ago

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

          • Balthazar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            41
            ·
            1 day 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%.

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              17
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day 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?

        • archonet@lemy.lol
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          ·
          edit-2
          6 hours ago

          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?

          • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 day ago

            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

            • archonet@lemy.lol
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              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.

          • Prime@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 day 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 day 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.

    • Skua@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      1 day 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

  • P00ptart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day 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.

  • assembly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 day 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.

  • null_dot@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

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

    • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day 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

  • deathbird@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

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

    • keegomatic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours 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.