RFK Jr.’s health department calls Nature “junk science,” cancels subscriptions
-
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
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Damn, what a bad
weekmonthdecadecentury for US healthcare! -
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.
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.
-
- fucking why?
- how did you learn this abomination?
You know I'm part of a club where we try to eat one of everything to maintain our dominant position in the food chain, but he makes us look like freaks. And not the fun kind of freaks.
-
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
Must be why he looks like he has a bad liver or too much colloidal silver, like some dumb smurf-hillbilly Hoosier
-
Just when I'm about to retire, Medicare will only cover chiropractors and horse paste.
And colloidal silver!
-
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%.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]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?
-
This post did not contain any content.
They're probably already in the data set of whichever LLM they use to write their policy documents anyway, so sure, fine.
-
This is all going to be covered by a snarky longform YouTube (or equivalent) documentary in 200 years.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]keep me in the screenshot unless you want your subscriber base to know this guy from the past thinks you suck.
also, we're so sorry. not all of us, but some of us.
-
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.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Which also nicely mirrors the Nazis calling everybody that contradicts them Lügenpresse.
-
This post did not contain any content.
The US is like a reality tv show, except it's less believable.
-
This post did not contain any content.
its called pseudoscience=alternative science, naturopathy, homeopathy. he regularly consumes methylene blue.
-
"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."
demons release miasma, maybe rfk jr should ge tthat checked.
-
- fucking why?
- how did you learn this abomination?
He's a sick bastard.
There's a three part Behind the Bastards on him that covers his childhood, young adult, and current craziness. I found part two the most interesting.
-
And, for that reason, about half the papers (depending on the field) published in Nature are wrong.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Doubtful.
That said, you're kind of just describing how peer review works, no?
-
This post did not contain any content.
Unnatural
-
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?
I think we found RFKs lemmy account
-
its called pseudoscience=alternative science, naturopathy, homeopathy. he regularly consumes methylene blue.
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.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Well at least we know which publication refused to capitulate to morons.
I wonder which ones they kept.
-
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.
That's not new though, Stalin and Hitler both played the fake news game.
