Peer review is not the big deal some make it out to be. I am sure that many think it is like teacher marking a science homework assignment. However, in the case of research, teacher does not know all the answers.
Scientists up to and including Einstein were not peer reviewed. How was their science? Did Newton come up with some good stuff? How about Einstein? Story is that one journal wanted to review Einstein and he said thanks but no thanks and sent his paper elsewhere!
The climate cabal use peer review as one more way to limit what papers are published and when. Delaying a paper that might have made an upcoming IPCC report can skew the science message that is presented.
On one occasion, some scientists published some controversial (i.e. non-narrative) research and the journal editor was approached to delay the paper. The peer review took for ever. All the time the climate cabal were desperately trying to dream up a counter paper and after some months they did. Obviously they approved their paper immediately.
The two papers were then published in consecutive editions of the journal making it look as if the original paper could be instantly dismissed. And, because the second paper was "independent" and not a reply to the first paper the original researchers had no right to reply and have the last word.
If you think that peer review prevents papers from being retracted you should visit Retraction Watch. Have a list of some retracted COVID-19 papers.
"Peer reviewed" can basically mean a bunch of folks who think exactly the same was as the author read it (or oftentimes not bother) and rubber stamp it. You see this especially with hot button political issues like the 57 genders or global warming.
Peer reviewed pieces aren't always crap. At my alma mater it was a very rigorous process. But like others have said, scientific "consensus" often has more to do with the person writing the checks and their agenda and less to do with actual science.
It's sad. Science SHOULD mean something. It should help mankind shed light on life's mysteries, unlock new doors for everyone, and be for the betterment of all.
Thanks for the link, TW. Just scanning and it seems that the guilty parties need to be identified and held accountable. Take #11, for example - "“A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” published on October 1, 2021 in Current Problems in Cardiology, temporarily retracted on October 15, 2021."
This was a Peter McCullough paper that someone had pulled. "Paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis is temporarily removed without explanation". Who was allowed to make these determinations? In this case it seems as if lawyers were involved and that can be traced back, through their connections, etc.
That was October 2021. If allowed to remain published and discussed, not censored, how many lives could have been saved?? If these types of matters were shown the light and allowed to be properly analyzed and debated in the public forums would the experimental drugs have been pulled from the market, the experiment halted, the perpetrators exposed?
Peer review is not the big deal some make it out to be. I am sure that many think it is like teacher marking a science homework assignment. However, in the case of research, teacher does not know all the answers.
Scientists up to and including Einstein were not peer reviewed. How was their science? Did Newton come up with some good stuff? How about Einstein? Story is that one journal wanted to review Einstein and he said thanks but no thanks and sent his paper elsewhere!
The climate cabal use peer review as one more way to limit what papers are published and when. Delaying a paper that might have made an upcoming IPCC report can skew the science message that is presented.
On one occasion, some scientists published some controversial (i.e. non-narrative) research and the journal editor was approached to delay the paper. The peer review took for ever. All the time the climate cabal were desperately trying to dream up a counter paper and after some months they did. Obviously they approved their paper immediately.
The two papers were then published in consecutive editions of the journal making it look as if the original paper could be instantly dismissed. And, because the second paper was "independent" and not a reply to the first paper the original researchers had no right to reply and have the last word.
If you think that peer review prevents papers from being retracted you should visit Retraction Watch. Have a list of some retracted COVID-19 papers.
"Peer reviewed" can basically mean a bunch of folks who think exactly the same was as the author read it (or oftentimes not bother) and rubber stamp it. You see this especially with hot button political issues like the 57 genders or global warming.
Peer reviewed pieces aren't always crap. At my alma mater it was a very rigorous process. But like others have said, scientific "consensus" often has more to do with the person writing the checks and their agenda and less to do with actual science.
It's sad. Science SHOULD mean something. It should help mankind shed light on life's mysteries, unlock new doors for everyone, and be for the betterment of all.
Thanks for the link, TW. Just scanning and it seems that the guilty parties need to be identified and held accountable. Take #11, for example - "“A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products,” published on October 1, 2021 in Current Problems in Cardiology, temporarily retracted on October 15, 2021."
This was a Peter McCullough paper that someone had pulled. "Paper linking COVID-19 vaccines to myocarditis is temporarily removed without explanation". Who was allowed to make these determinations? In this case it seems as if lawyers were involved and that can be traced back, through their connections, etc.
That was October 2021. If allowed to remain published and discussed, not censored, how many lives could have been saved?? If these types of matters were shown the light and allowed to be properly analyzed and debated in the public forums would the experimental drugs have been pulled from the market, the experiment halted, the perpetrators exposed?