RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions
-
Yeah, getting published in Nature is a career gold star achievement. They’re very high impact (meaning many other scientific papers cite their articles).
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
-
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?
I wait for the new FDA “preferred partners” program
-
Clean eating, like park bear and whale carcasses!
Don't forget to bathe in raw sewage.
-
This post did not contain any content.
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Got evidence for that bold claim?
-
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?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Aaaand thoughts and prayers!
gotta have some tots and pears!
-
"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."
Have you tried suntanning your asshole?
-
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?
Because like everyone in Trump's government, he is there to gut, cripple, and undermine the public's trust in our institutions.
-
This post did not contain any content.
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.
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
I’m dying at the irony of claiming 50% of all Nature articles are wrong while also providing literally no evidence
-
No wonder he got that brainworm.
He used to pop the eye balls out of birds heads and eat them raw
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Because the journal is so highly respected, half the papers are wrong?
What
-
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.
he in fact believes pathogens in the food supply are necessary to build your immune system
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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?
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
Citation needed
-
Because the journal is so highly respected, half the papers are wrong?
What
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.
-
Have you tried suntanning your asshole?
Only if I can help Gwyneth Paltrow steam-clean her Gua Chakra.
-
Got evidence for that bold claim?
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%.
-
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.
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.
