trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Dipping a fly into food or drink prevents food poisoning
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 2 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Reference sources and scientific analysis refute the notion that dipping a fly into food or drink acts as an antidote or prevents illness, explaining that flies carry pathogens across their entire bodies and experimental data fails to support any protective antimicrobial effect.

Evidence against · 2
2012 · cited by 0
This idea that one wing causes illness while the other is the antidote simply isn't plausible. The University of Florida's Entomology Department explains Pathogenic organisms are picked up by flies from garbage, sewage and other sources of filth, and then transferred on their mouthparts, through their vomitus, feces and contaminated external body parts to human and animal food. So, the wings are not the only source of the pathogens. Further, Wikipedia explains that house flies carry a number of different pathogens, including: parasitic diseases: cysts of protozoa e.g. Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia and eggs of helminths, e.g., Ascaris lumbricoides, Trichuros trichura, Haemenolypes nana, Enterobius vermicularis. bacterial diseases: typhoid, cholera, dysentery, pyogenic cocci, [...] viruses: enteroviruses: poliomyelitis, viral hepatitis (A & E) [...] So, the wings would not merely
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency

More against · 1
2021 · cited by 0
The 1990 paper by Baeshin is dipping flies for 20 seconds (vs floating fly for 20 seconds) and dipping flies thrice for 20 seconds each (vs floating for 60 seconds) in some experiments using the same fly multiple times (!) in some experiments having only one no-dip statistic, ..., no variance is computed, tests are done maximally 6 times, provenance of flies is unclear, the manipulation neccessary for dipping has no clear equal on the no-dip side of things (introduction of antimicrobials via the tool?), counts fluctuate wildly over time and over media - in short, it is a hot mess. The hypothesis is that the fly carries an antimicrobial factor that is transferred to the water in a higher concentration when dipping, thus counteracting the initially higher microbial input. The data does not bear that out, if the experimental and statistical shortcomings are taken into account. The microbiol
Everything we examined (2) — 1 independent source
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Does dipping a fly into food/drink prevent food poisoning?referencesame source L3no side taken
  2. Is this study evidence that a fly falling into one's drink should be dipped?referencesame source L3no side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt