The problem is the studies and the only way to communicate is to weaponize it. So many of these studies are poorly thought out with no real hypothesis testing wherein a bunch of shit is measured and then they find something and report that. Any study with rats with an n of 6 should elicit skeptical reactions. Any study with humans with an n of 6 should be thrown in the garbage. But that's not what happens. Some journal will publish it, and if the conclusion is provocative enough, some good journal will publish it. Even if the authors are humble enough to say, "This is a small n but it justifies spending some real money to figure out if this is real," that's not how it will be positioned in the press. And then every dickhead with a Science Daily subscription is all of a sudden an expert on immunology. Same goes for big correlation studies, but they have gravitas because they have lots of people, so they must be true. But they suffer from the same basic problem that there's no controls, no hypotheses, no randomization, etc, etc. I think we've learned a lot about science literacy in these past 11 months (as if we needed any more data on that topic). And I can't say we've learned anything good.
It's a good cartoon, but I actually think it overcomplicates the issues. They hit the nail on the head in one single panel, which is having to prove that you prespecified what your analysis would be before you did any measurements. That's the only way to ensure that your a priori odds match with your statistical analysis. I also think that publishing per se is less of an issue than grant funding. If every scientist weren't on the hook to pay his/her own salary via federally funded grants, that immense pressure wouldn't exist. There's no university in America who gives a fuck what your publication rate is if you're bringing in a million per year.