I found this chapter very, very illuminating. Apart from everything else, Maxwell ran one of the biggest publishing organizations, which was responsible for publishing all the so-called 'science' papers, etc, for several decades.
A very salient piece of the puzzle. Worth listening? 9/10 points.
The Book of Trump is an anons resource Par Excellance!
Yes, the peer review process actually gate keeps true scientific fact from reaching the public.
Many theories taught in academia as "accepted fact" are proven demonstrably false by new findings that have been silenced by the bought-out peer review process.
We saw that quite clearly in the "climate science" community. If you were one of the chosen circle then you all "reviewed" each other's papers and if you were an outsider with contrary views you would have a lot of trouble at the peer review stage.
On one occasion, a paper was held up for months until the righteous ones had managed to cobble up a counter message. Then the two papers appeared in consecutive issues of a journal making it look as if the original paper was easy to refute.
On another occasion, details of the paper were leaked and contrary paper was constructed and bot papers appeared at the same time. If the second paper had been a response to the first the originators would have had the last word but the ploy meant that if the writers of the first paper replied to the second then the second authors would have the last word.
Then there are the machinations of the IPCC. On one occasion, a disruptive paper was delayed until after the cutoff date for IPCC submission thus keeping it out of their reports for three years.
Peer Review seems to have become a thing around the time of Einstein. One journal asked him to submit his paper for peer review and he said No thanks and gave it to another journal! I always thought he was smart.
Now think of all the famous scientists leading up to Einstein without peer review and all the famous ones since with peer review: Faraday, Maxwell, Rutherford, Boltzmann, Planck, Lorentz, the Curies, Bohr.
Has peer review actually improved anything?
Is it any more than gate keeping?
In many cases, 70–130-year-old theories are trying to be upheld, while existing data and experimentation proves these theories antiquated and absurdly incorrect, but if you can't get published in the peer reviewed journals your paper does not exist.
Luckily the papers are still online, and the public is waking up. But I don't know of many people like me diving into six hours of hunting down studies on obscure topics.
The classic one for me is poor Alfred Wegener. He had the stupid idea that the land masses on the earth moved! He thought Plate Tectonics was a thing but the consensus view was that they did not.
The established scientists managed to maintain their view for decades until after Wegener died. Now everyone thinks he was right after all.
That should be borne in mind when considering science. We may be living in one of the decades when the correct idea is out there but the consensus says it is not.
It is hard for scientists. They first learn something over a couple of decades or so. Then they teach it for another three decades. If some young upstart comes along and says they are wrong they have half a century of experience telling them it is not true. Many never change their minds.
I think it was Max Planck who said something like science advances by one dead scientist at a time. Only when the establishment scientists change are new ideas accepted.
Interesting, I had not seen that idea before. I don't believe it, though!
The reasoning behind subduction zones being impossible is a bit light. I am going to need more than "it is too dense." The cooled rock is most likely even denser so could very well sink. I believe that there is seismic data to support that theory.
Both the Atlantic and Pacific can be expanding from central ridges and depending on what happens at the edges will determine if the area grows (Atlantic) or shrinks (Pacific). Either way, the ocean floor will be of newer rock than the surface.
How mountains arise from colliding plates is also glossed over.
Other issues include: where does the extra mass come from or does it somehow just expand? If so, what causes that expansion? Where does the water come from? Actually, there is not as much water as we might think.
There is also an assertion that all planets must be the same or the alternative is that the Earth must be unique and at the centre of the universe. Why? We know that not all planets have magnetic poles, for instance, so they are not all the same.
Transactional Management - designed in the forties, to control armies.
Also known as 'carrot and stick' - still used today. Also, that was apparent in the weird show Trump has been putting on. I could not believe he actually threatened Russia, and then seemed to play nice ... but I think he was putting on a show. The style needs clear rules - if you do X, you get Y, for both the reward and the punishment. That's why it works better in military or hard-labor situations, but It can very easily become tyranny,
BTW. Very not helpful in a digital environment - and I mean everybody has a computer and is using software in the workplace, and they have specialities - managers cannot start whupping them, sorry.. It just doesn't work. For example: Manager: You must write code, now, I'll give you a bonus. Why are you not typing? Answer: I am thinking.
Transformational Management - lol, birthed in the "I'd like to teach the world to sing' era of group hugs and amazingly powerful motivatioinal speakers. With it, came a whole shelf of pop-management books about how such managers need to have lots of leeway, so that they work their magic. And that rah-rah promotes productivity. A lot of back-slapping and grabbing elbows, touchy-feely stuff, and of ourse, lots of praise. Not much actual work though. Problem is: such managers are a dime a dozen these days: the theory has finally caught on, in un-edumecated management circles, but LOL they saw the Ted-talk.. The style suits narcissistic, manipulative shiny-arses, and usually they don't know a thing about the software..
Eric Weinstein Exposes the Peer Review Scam: How COVID Blew Up a 50-Year Academic Lie
COVID didn’t just break public trust in science—it proved peer review is a manufactured myth, weaponized to gatekeep truth.
As Eric Weinstein reveals:
🔹 Peer review isn’t some ancient tradition. It wasn’t born with the Royal Society. Real scholarship shows it was invented between 1965-1975—a bureaucratic tool, not a gold standard.
🔹 The Medicare Act (1965) forced it into existence. Suddenly, the U.S. government had to pay for endless medical procedures. Doctors circled the wagons, creating "peer review" to police themselves—not ensure truth.
🔹 By 1975, the NSF weaponized it. Under pressure, they turned "peer review" into a shield—"Trust us, we’re checking each other!" No—they were protecting each other.
🔹 Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press monetized it. As journals boomed, "peer review" became fake validation for a prestige industry.
COVID was the smoking gun:
The Lancet & Nature published fraud (Remember HCQ hysteria? Surgisphere?).
"Peer-reviewed" journals became propaganda laundromats.
The system rewarded groupthink, crushed dissent.
Weinstein’s verdict: Peer review is a modern con—a Potemkin process designed to simulate rigor while entrenching power.
Until we admit that, "trust the science" is just a demand for obedience.
Yes Robert Maxwell's Pergamon Press! "Pergamon" - now that's a name that has a significant meaning: "Known for the worship of many gods, including Zeus, Dionysus, Athena, and Asclepius (the god of healing). The sanctuary of Asclepius in Pergamon was a famous healing center."
"In the Bible: Pergamum is one of the seven churches of Asia addressed in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:12–17). It is called the place “where Satan’s throne is,” likely referring to its pagan temples and emperor worship."
So true! Peer pressure is more accurate. It sounds good like EVERYTHING the left/DS promotes but it’s really just a way to grease the skids for policies/medications & theories they want to promote.
Every mnemonic call is a cry for power. Trust the Science. No Blood for Oil. The Walls are Closing in on Trump. Where's the Beef. Even the Catholic Church's hail mary chant. Or battle cries, like For Johnny or Remember the Alamo.
It's all designed to funnel your thought process towards capitulation to the aim and goals of the author.
They are not inherently bad - but, as with everything else, we must hold vigilance that they aren't bandied about like toys. You can see the insanity rippling through our country based on the calls to suppress thought and only listen to the globalist freaks.
Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific method. And, just good philosophy. The idea is that you propose a theory to your colleagues and see if they can find any logical flaws. Nothing wrong with that. Its a good thing. Fraud is fraud and "peer review" now doesnt mean anything because of scientific fraud. So, scientific fraud is the problem and is what needs to be done away with. Not peer review.
One medical journal had to be closed down due to the fact that so many of the papers submitted were fraudulent or plagiarized. It was maybe a year into COVD right around when AI was coming out. The papers were run through an AI system and AI found many flaws similar to DOGE.
But it's not really a good philosophy. While it filters out quacks and retards, it also invariably filters out anything truly revolutionary and cutting edge. The cutting edge is the whole point of science and why society invests so much into it. The whole process of creating science, including peer review, makes it a poor investment
If you discover something revolutionary that goes against the currently accepted paradigm, your colleagues aren't going to accept it immediately even if the data and logic is infallible. They will, in fact, probably actively fight against your (objectively true) conclusion. The biggest names in your field will laugh and deride you, calling you a quack and a retard. We've seen countless examples of this through history.
But the fraud is an inherent part of the process. There is no possible way to have peer review as it is done today without the fraud. The idea that this is a question of will, that "it would work if people were different" is stupid, because people aren't different.
Peer review is just getting other people's input. But, it is also an institutionalized process that has been corrupted. Get rid of fraudsters, institutions, and keep the part where you ask for other people's thoughts on your understandings of things.
No, the results need to be shown to be reproducible as part of the review, otherwise the review is nothing more than a parroting acceptance or an opinionated negation.
Normally, the scientist reproduces the results as part of the experimental phase of the scientific process and then it should also be reproducable in the peer review process.
I saw tthatt 20+ years ago with the global warming bullshit.
Just ask Robert Maxwell.
And, if you are not up to speed on who Robert Maxwell, father of Ghislaine Maxwell is, well, you might want to consider this:
The Book of Trump: Chapter 19: Robert Maxwell
https://rumble.com/v6ui6zj-the-book-of-trump-chapter-19.html
I found this chapter very, very illuminating. Apart from everything else, Maxwell ran one of the biggest publishing organizations, which was responsible for publishing all the so-called 'science' papers, etc, for several decades.
A very salient piece of the puzzle. Worth listening? 9/10 points.
The Book of Trump is an anons resource Par Excellance!
Yes, the peer review process actually gate keeps true scientific fact from reaching the public.
Many theories taught in academia as "accepted fact" are proven demonstrably false by new findings that have been silenced by the bought-out peer review process.
Agreed.
We saw that quite clearly in the "climate science" community. If you were one of the chosen circle then you all "reviewed" each other's papers and if you were an outsider with contrary views you would have a lot of trouble at the peer review stage.
On one occasion, a paper was held up for months until the righteous ones had managed to cobble up a counter message. Then the two papers appeared in consecutive issues of a journal making it look as if the original paper was easy to refute.
On another occasion, details of the paper were leaked and contrary paper was constructed and bot papers appeared at the same time. If the second paper had been a response to the first the originators would have had the last word but the ploy meant that if the writers of the first paper replied to the second then the second authors would have the last word.
Then there are the machinations of the IPCC. On one occasion, a disruptive paper was delayed until after the cutoff date for IPCC submission thus keeping it out of their reports for three years.
Peer Review seems to have become a thing around the time of Einstein. One journal asked him to submit his paper for peer review and he said No thanks and gave it to another journal! I always thought he was smart.
Now think of all the famous scientists leading up to Einstein without peer review and all the famous ones since with peer review: Faraday, Maxwell, Rutherford, Boltzmann, Planck, Lorentz, the Curies, Bohr.
Has peer review actually improved anything? Is it any more than gate keeping?
In many cases, 70–130-year-old theories are trying to be upheld, while existing data and experimentation proves these theories antiquated and absurdly incorrect, but if you can't get published in the peer reviewed journals your paper does not exist.
Luckily the papers are still online, and the public is waking up. But I don't know of many people like me diving into six hours of hunting down studies on obscure topics.
The classic one for me is poor Alfred Wegener. He had the stupid idea that the land masses on the earth moved! He thought Plate Tectonics was a thing but the consensus view was that they did not.
The established scientists managed to maintain their view for decades until after Wegener died. Now everyone thinks he was right after all.
That should be borne in mind when considering science. We may be living in one of the decades when the correct idea is out there but the consensus says it is not.
It is hard for scientists. They first learn something over a couple of decades or so. Then they teach it for another three decades. If some young upstart comes along and says they are wrong they have half a century of experience telling them it is not true. Many never change their minds.
I think it was Max Planck who said something like science advances by one dead scientist at a time. Only when the establishment scientists change are new ideas accepted.
Yes, that one was egregious.
Try this on for size.
Then look up electro-magnetic current sheets that attract water in space to electromagnetically be attracted to the earth.
The earth is growing and is larger now than it was in the past.
Do not even get me started on the observance of time based on mass.
Interesting, I had not seen that idea before. I don't believe it, though!
The reasoning behind subduction zones being impossible is a bit light. I am going to need more than "it is too dense." The cooled rock is most likely even denser so could very well sink. I believe that there is seismic data to support that theory.
Both the Atlantic and Pacific can be expanding from central ridges and depending on what happens at the edges will determine if the area grows (Atlantic) or shrinks (Pacific). Either way, the ocean floor will be of newer rock than the surface.
How mountains arise from colliding plates is also glossed over.
Other issues include: where does the extra mass come from or does it somehow just expand? If so, what causes that expansion? Where does the water come from? Actually, there is not as much water as we might think.
There is also an assertion that all planets must be the same or the alternative is that the Earth must be unique and at the centre of the universe. Why? We know that not all planets have magnetic poles, for instance, so they are not all the same.
Yes, try:
Transactional Management - designed in the forties, to control armies. Also known as 'carrot and stick' - still used today. Also, that was apparent in the weird show Trump has been putting on. I could not believe he actually threatened Russia, and then seemed to play nice ... but I think he was putting on a show. The style needs clear rules - if you do X, you get Y, for both the reward and the punishment. That's why it works better in military or hard-labor situations, but It can very easily become tyranny,
BTW. Very not helpful in a digital environment - and I mean everybody has a computer and is using software in the workplace, and they have specialities - managers cannot start whupping them, sorry.. It just doesn't work. For example: Manager: You must write code, now, I'll give you a bonus. Why are you not typing? Answer: I am thinking.
Transformational Management - lol, birthed in the "I'd like to teach the world to sing' era of group hugs and amazingly powerful motivatioinal speakers. With it, came a whole shelf of pop-management books about how such managers need to have lots of leeway, so that they work their magic. And that rah-rah promotes productivity. A lot of back-slapping and grabbing elbows, touchy-feely stuff, and of ourse, lots of praise. Not much actual work though. Problem is: such managers are a dime a dozen these days: the theory has finally caught on, in un-edumecated management circles, but LOL they saw the Ted-talk.. The style suits narcissistic, manipulative shiny-arses, and usually they don't know a thing about the software..
indeed. It happened to me.
Eric Weinstein Exposes the Peer Review Scam: How COVID Blew Up a 50-Year Academic Lie
COVID didn’t just break public trust in science—it proved peer review is a manufactured myth, weaponized to gatekeep truth.
As Eric Weinstein reveals:
🔹 Peer review isn’t some ancient tradition. It wasn’t born with the Royal Society. Real scholarship shows it was invented between 1965-1975—a bureaucratic tool, not a gold standard.
🔹 The Medicare Act (1965) forced it into existence. Suddenly, the U.S. government had to pay for endless medical procedures. Doctors circled the wagons, creating "peer review" to police themselves—not ensure truth.
🔹 By 1975, the NSF weaponized it. Under pressure, they turned "peer review" into a shield—"Trust us, we’re checking each other!" No—they were protecting each other.
🔹 Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press monetized it. As journals boomed, "peer review" became fake validation for a prestige industry.
COVID was the smoking gun:
The Lancet & Nature published fraud (Remember HCQ hysteria? Surgisphere?).
"Peer-reviewed" journals became propaganda laundromats.
The system rewarded groupthink, crushed dissent.
Weinstein’s verdict: Peer review is a modern con—a Potemkin process designed to simulate rigor while entrenching power.
Until we admit that, "trust the science" is just a demand for obedience.
Yes Robert Maxwell's Pergamon Press! "Pergamon" - now that's a name that has a significant meaning: "Known for the worship of many gods, including Zeus, Dionysus, Athena, and Asclepius (the god of healing). The sanctuary of Asclepius in Pergamon was a famous healing center."
"In the Bible: Pergamum is one of the seven churches of Asia addressed in the Book of Revelation (Revelation 2:12–17). It is called the place “where Satan’s throne is,” likely referring to its pagan temples and emperor worship."
Isn't it cheaper to buy a scientist than a politician?
Both are prostitutes
So true! Peer pressure is more accurate. It sounds good like EVERYTHING the left/DS promotes but it’s really just a way to grease the skids for policies/medications & theories they want to promote.
Every mnemonic call is a cry for power. Trust the Science. No Blood for Oil. The Walls are Closing in on Trump. Where's the Beef. Even the Catholic Church's hail mary chant. Or battle cries, like For Johnny or Remember the Alamo.
It's all designed to funnel your thought process towards capitulation to the aim and goals of the author.
They are not inherently bad - but, as with everything else, we must hold vigilance that they aren't bandied about like toys. You can see the insanity rippling through our country based on the calls to suppress thought and only listen to the globalist freaks.
Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific method. And, just good philosophy. The idea is that you propose a theory to your colleagues and see if they can find any logical flaws. Nothing wrong with that. Its a good thing. Fraud is fraud and "peer review" now doesnt mean anything because of scientific fraud. So, scientific fraud is the problem and is what needs to be done away with. Not peer review.
One medical journal had to be closed down due to the fact that so many of the papers submitted were fraudulent or plagiarized. It was maybe a year into COVD right around when AI was coming out. The papers were run through an AI system and AI found many flaws similar to DOGE.
Exactly. Its the journals and institutions that are the problem. Scientific fraud.
But it's not really a good philosophy. While it filters out quacks and retards, it also invariably filters out anything truly revolutionary and cutting edge. The cutting edge is the whole point of science and why society invests so much into it. The whole process of creating science, including peer review, makes it a poor investment
If you discover something revolutionary that goes against the currently accepted paradigm, your colleagues aren't going to accept it immediately even if the data and logic is infallible. They will, in fact, probably actively fight against your (objectively true) conclusion. The biggest names in your field will laugh and deride you, calling you a quack and a retard. We've seen countless examples of this through history.
Right. But, thats a different problem (corruption of the peer review process and incompetence in the peer review process).
That's like saying gravity is just the corruption of my inability to fly.
The corruption is built-in and inevitable because of the way people are.
Not really. Blaming peer review is like blaming experimentation or hypothesis. Scientific fraud is the problem, not science as a methodology.
But the fraud is an inherent part of the process. There is no possible way to have peer review as it is done today without the fraud. The idea that this is a question of will, that "it would work if people were different" is stupid, because people aren't different.
Peer review is just getting other people's input. But, it is also an institutionalized process that has been corrupted. Get rid of fraudsters, institutions, and keep the part where you ask for other people's thoughts on your understandings of things.
Peer Review can be used for good but it is all too often used for gate keeping.
Has science really improved since peer review was introduced?
Without the reproduction of results, peer review is next to worthless
Right. Peer review usually comes after this step.
No, the results need to be shown to be reproducible as part of the review, otherwise the review is nothing more than a parroting acceptance or an opinionated negation.
Normally, the scientist reproduces the results as part of the experimental phase of the scientific process and then it should also be reproducable in the peer review process.