The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
you'll find in the scientific literature today in the top journals that they're ignoring massive evidence that don't support their position and that's what's it that's one of the problems and like you know we were saying that this problem in cancer all these top journals cell science nature you know 50% of them up to 50% of the article can't be reproduced in other people's labs this is a crisis in the field
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
ninety percent of the papers published in the highest profile journals of science are irreproducible
So something like 40% of scientific publications can't be replicated, which means people are just getting data, and there's a lot of times when you get data and you can't repeat it.