Isn't the lancet the same journal that has published the vax-autism and hydroxychloroquine studies?

The Lancet has been around for 200 years. It publishes weekly.

It's a highly regarded journal, but it doesn't mean 100% of the papers published are perfect.

If you're trying to dismiss a study because it was published in The Lancet then that's not a convincing line of reasoning to anyone who understands the scientific publishing landscape.

▲

SecretDreams a day ago | parent [-]

> anyone who understands the scientific publishing landscape.

Anyone genuinely familiar with the scientific publishing process probably holds the most skepticism around publications. I could probably get ANYTHING published if I wrote it well enough.

IMO, publications are mostly useful if you're already a bit of an SME in the field so that you can parse snake oil from gold. Certain publishers and institutions also hold more credibility, depending on the topic. Broadly speaking, there's a ton of crap in the journal space and the ratio of crap/good grows by the year.

The above view is independent of the current article. But it's embarrassing to see people praise the heck out of publications in 2026 in a vacuum. Reeks of young PhD student vibes. Even nature is not what it was even 10 years prior.

▲

Aurornis a day ago | parent [-]

> Anyone genuinely familiar with the scientific publishing process probably holds the most skepticism around publications

Healthy skepticism is a good idea

The silly notion that being published means it should be dismissed or that we should assume the opposite is true is not healthy though.

> The above view is independent of the current article. But it's embarrassing to see people praise the heck out of publications in 2026 in a vacuum. Reeks of young PhD student vibes.

I was responding to a comment above mine that said this journal was untrustworthy because of a single news bite they recalled.

I specifically said that not everything published in a journal is true!

Your condescending “young PhD student vibes” attempt at an insult is rich considering you didn’t even try to acknowledge what I actually said or the context in which I was delivering it.

Discussing anything science and research related on HN is such a slog because so many commenters are in such a rush to deliver some contrarian smug take that they’re not even reading what’s written.

▲

SecretDreams a day ago | parent [-]

> I specifically said that not everything published in a journal is true!

Yes, but the undertone of your message was towards them being generally good and useful. Which my post disagrees with. This view hardens with every new year.

The entirety of your comment just now is predicated on this one point, which is treating your words at face value, rather than their implication. To act like I didn't understand your words, let alone read them, is an insult to the both of us - notably you. Because if you believed what you had typed, you would not expect a real response from you typing it, which would make you typing it pointless in the first place.

	▲	Aurornis a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Yes, but the undertone of your message was towards them being generally good and useful. Which my post disagrees with. Research published in journals like The Lancet is generally useful. I don't agree that it's reasonable to dismiss everything published like that. What are you even left with at that point, other than knee-jerk contrarian takes?

▲

foolfoolz 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

same lancet that tried to bury covid lab leak theories in february 2020

	▲	object-a 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Evidence for lab leak is extremely weak, zoonosis is the most likely origin: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-r... https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/the-case-against-the-...

▲

zarathustreal 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

These dismissals based on the source rather than the material are getting really annoying. We’re supposed to be intellectuals here, we can do better than that.