Don't be ridiculous. HUNDREDS of papers fitting that description have been published. Dozens were submitted to Nature. It rejected them all without review, and in the recent article and editorials it did not mention a single one of them. How much more proof do you need that Nature will not acknowledge the truth?? Ah, I know the answer. You yourself will not acknowledge the truth, so of course you will not see -- or you will not admit -- that Nature is lying.
OK - so this is getting way off topic. If, on another thread perhaps, you were to list one of these Nature rejected papers (in the last 3 years say) I could point out why it was rejected and how it could be improved. Earlier papers fine too - but remember if you go back too far the context is different, and it would not be possible to make the argument that google did and be published on that basis.