Lightnews — Scholar-powered news

Science Feedback

@sciencefeedback.bsky.social

5.6K followers 440 following 380 posts

Scientists sorting fact from fiction in scientific media coverage. ➡️ science.feedback.org French account: @sciencefeedback-fr.bsky.social

Posts Media Videos Starter Packs

Pinned

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Jul 29

𝗪𝗵𝗼'𝘀 𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗳𝗮𝗹𝘀𝗲 𝗰𝗹𝗮𝗶𝗺𝘀? 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀 𝘀𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝘁𝗼𝗱𝗮𝘆'𝘀 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰 𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗶𝗰𝘀?
Our monthly newsletter (in English and French) helps you track the latest misinformation trends and what scientists are really finding while keeping an eye on policy in this domain.

1 3 7

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 9d

This report was produced in partnership with @newtral.es demagog.sk @pravdapl.bsky.social @checkfirst.network & Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC)

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 9d

What’s next?
A second measurement in early 2026 will track how these numbers evolve.
Follow us here for updates.
Download the full report (PDF) 👉 science.feedback.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/SIMODS-Report-1.pdf

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 9d

Why it matters.
Under the EU’s Digital Services Act, platforms must show they’re mitigating systemic risks like disinformation.
This study gives the clearest independent benchmark yet to track compliance with the Code of Conduct.

1 5

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 9d

One of our most striking findings: the misinformation premium

Across all platforms except LinkedIn, accounts spreading misinformation get more reach per follower than credible accounts

On YouTube: low-credibility accounts get 8x more interactions per follower than high-credibility ones

1 1 4

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 9d

What we found:
⚠️ TikTok has the highest prevalence of misinformation: 20% of posts on public-interest topics contain false or misleading info.
Facebook is 2nd at 13%

LinkedIn has the lowest prevalence at just 2%, showing platforms can design systems that don’t reward falsehoods

1 2 4

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 9d

🚨 New report out: the first cross-platform, cross-country baseline on misinformation in Europe

Based on large scale data analysis: ~2.6M posts (24B views) collected on Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, TikTok, X & YouTube

science.feedback.org/first-measurement-disinformation-major-platforms-europe

What our first measurement says about disinformation on major platforms in Europe - Science Feedback

Science Feedback and partners have released a first measurement of Structural Indicators across six Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) in four EU member states (France, Spain, Poland, Slovakia). Belo...

science.feedback.org

1 12 22

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 29d

Bottom line: DMSO has legitimate uses in medicine (like organ preservation), but it's not a cure-all.
Be cautious of claims that promise simple fixes for complex health issues. 🔗 science.feedback.org/beware-mirac...

Beware of "miracle cure" claims surrounding DMSO

Anecdotes about DMSO's alleged curative properties are popular on social media, but scientific evidence supporting "miracle cure" claims is scarce.

science.feedback.org

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 29d

DMSO has also been linked to alternative cancer treatments on social media. But Science Feedback found no credible evidence it works in humans, and its safety profile is still uncertain.

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 29d

Mishra adds: safer, more effective options exist – like NSAIDs, paracetamol, or physical therapy. Using DMSO instead could pose unnecessary risks.

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 29d

Recent posts on TikTok and X promote DMSO for pain relief. But as Medicines Lead Sailesh Mishra @facultypainmed.bsky.social notes, it’s “not a first-line or proven treatment” and may even carry toxins into the body.

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · 29d

Claims that DMSO can treat everything from pain to cancer often rely on anecdotes—not solid clinical evidence. Science Feedback reviewed these claims and found major gaps. 🔗 science.feedback.org/beware-mirac...

1 1 4

Reposted by Science Feedback

Jenny Allen @jennyallen.bsky.social · Aug 6

New in TiCS w @dgrand.bsky.social @gordpennycook.bsky.social

It’s been ~10yrs since misinfo research exploded but our paradigms are stuck in the post-2016 “fake news” model

Time for new approaches:
o True/False → Content that misleads
o Belief → Behavior
o Eval interventions in ambiguous settings

3 39 95

Reposted by Science Feedback

Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf @rahmstorf.bsky.social · Aug 13

I checked the claim of the DOE report that sea level is rising at a lower rate than predicted by IPCC: it is false.
For 2030, the IPCC AR6 predicts a best estimate 9-10 cm relative to 1995-2014 (Table 9.9).
The satellite data show a rise of 74 mm until 2025. At this rate that will be 93 mm by 2030.

8 120 310

Reposted by Science Feedback

Verified Accounts @verifiedusers.bsky.social · Aug 12

🛡️ @sciencefeedback.bsky.social has been verified by @bsky.team Track verified accounts and trusted verifiers at bverified.vercel.app!

1 1

Reposted by Science Feedback

Andrew Dessler @andrewdessler.com · Aug 9

Nice article about NASEM review of the endangerment finding by @insideclimatenews.org

National Academies Will Review Endangerment Finding Science insideclimatenews.org/news/0708202...

Andrew Dessler, director of the Texas Center for Extreme Weather at Texas A&M University, said the new controversy that the Trump administration had stirred around climate science was a fitting subject for a fast-track effort by the National Academies.

“The National Academies [were] established exactly to do things like this—to answer questions of scientific importance for the government,” he said. “This is what the DOE should have done all along, rather than hire five people who represent a tiny minority of the scientific community and have views that virtually nobody else agrees with.”

14 33

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

Don’t be misled by illusory associations.
When interpreting data, compare 🍎 to 🍎, not 🍎 to 🍊.

Learn more in Science Feedback’s review:
🔗 science.feedback.org/review/inade...
7/7

No, Japanese COVID vaccine database doesn't show "the more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die"

A fair comparison of an unvaccinated group with a vaccinated group requires that the two groups are matched in terms of age and medical condition. Multiple published studies have shown that COVID-19 v...

science.feedback.org

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

That means comparing groups that are similar in every key way except vaccination status
If you skip this, you can create the illusion of a link between vaccination & death
As @jsm2334.bsky.social said: “The claim is based on misinterpretation and failure to adjust for obvious age confounding”
6/7

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

If you want to know whether vaccination affects mortality, you must rule out other explanations –like differences in age or health status– before blaming the vaccine.
5/7

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

Why this matters:
- Mortality rates rise with age.
- People with serious illnesses tend to have higher mortality.

→ If vaccinated people are, on average, older or sicker, their mortality rate will be higher regardless of vaccination.
4/7

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

Before believing what you see, ask:
👉 Are the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups comparable in other factors that affect mortality?
3/7

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

One of their graphs compared mortality rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated people.
It looked like vaccinated people had higher mortality.
But that conclusion ignores a crucial question. 👇
2/7

1 1

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 8

A viral claim from a Japanese anti-mRNA vaccine group says: “The more shots you get, the sooner you die.”
It’s based on a fundamental error in interpreting data.
Here’s why this conclusion doesn’t hold up:
🔗 science.feedback.org/review/inade...
1/7

No, Japanese COVID vaccine database doesn't show "the more doses you get, the sooner you’re likely to die"

science.feedback.org

2 7

Reposted by Science Feedback

Michael E. Mann @michaelemann.bsky.social · Aug 7

"Misleading U.S. Department of Energy climate report chooses bias over science, climate scientists say" | Article by the team at @sciencefeedback.bsky.social:

science.feedback.org/review/misle...

Misleading U.S. Department of Energy climate report chooses bias over science, climate scientists say

DOE report written by climate contrarians shares misleading information on climate change and excludes well-established evidence.

science.feedback.org

3 33 83

Reposted by Science Feedback

Gavin Schmidt @climateofgavin.bsky.social · Aug 3

Is sea level around the US accelerating? If you actually do the analysis, instead of just repeating talking points from decades ago, the answer is yes.
tamino.wordpress.com/2025/08/03/s...

Sea Level Mis-information from DOE

Here in the USA, the Department of Energy (DOE) has issued a report titled “A Critical Review of the Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.” It is a product of the &#8…

tamino.wordpress.com

17 210 530

Science Feedback @sciencefeedback.bsky.social · Aug 6

On topics like rising CO₂’s impact on crop yields, extreme weather, and wildfires, the report cherry-picks information to present a one-sided view, ignoring decades of scientific evidence.
📖 Read Science Feedback’s review for detailed analysis: science.feedback.org/review/misle...

Misleading U.S. Department of Energy climate report chooses bias over science, climate scientists say

DOE report written by climate contrarians shares misleading information on climate change and excludes well-established evidence.

science.feedback.org