|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The majority of journalists and some members of the public tend to regard the peer review system as a vital part of the scientific process.
If a new piece of research is published, they will dismiss it as worthless if it hasn’t been ‘peer reviewed’.
I’ve got bad news for them.
The peer review system is not just worthless – it is dangerous and designed to perpetuate errors, misconceptions and faulty reasoning.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The problem is that the “peers” who are chosen to “review” a scientific paper or a piece of scientific research will invariably be members of a small group of individuals who are committed to supporting the establishment – and who almost certainly have financial links to the establishment. If they are peer reviewing a medical paper they will, in 99 times out of 100, have links to the pharmaceutical industry.
Scientists who are asked to review a piece of research will be part of the system they are reviewing. They will depend for their livelihood on reputations built on supporting the establishment. The scientist who doesn’t do what he is expected to do, and who welcomes original thinking, will soon be exiled and find himself unemployable. His work won’t be published in the standard journals. A scientist who questions accepted beliefs (however blatantly wrong they may be) will not be asked to “peer review” anything.
And the problem, of course, is that the pharmaceutical industry is known to be riddled with corrupt people and corrupt practices.
Scientific research which is original, and of real value, will be suppressed if it is considered to be inconvenient to the pharmaceutical industry and/or the medical establishment.
There is no doubt that the peer review system will be used to suppress valuable new ideas and essential truths.
It is, for example, largely because of the peer review system that valuable, valid information about covid-19 and the vaccination programmes currently being promoted, is demonised by the media and the public.
It is thanks to the peer review system that four out of ten patients given drugs suffer side effects (some lethal) and why one in six hospital patients have been made ill by doctors. It is thanks to the peer review system that scores of allegedly thoroughly tested drugs have had to be withdrawn.
In a world where truth was of importance, the peer review system would be regarded as worthless and discredited; it is corrupt and serves merely to maintain the lies promoted by the medical establishment – which is, of course, owned by the pharmaceutical industry.
Vernon Coleman’s book Betrayal of Trust, which drew attention to the fact that only 1% of journal articles are scientifically sound, has been republished as a paperback. It is available from the bookshop on this website.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help power The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful journalism for the years to come…
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
such as Google, Facebook, Twitter & PayPal
are trying to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuse to…
We’re not funded by the Government
to publish lies & propaganda on their
behalf like the mainstream media.
Instead, we rely solely on our support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring you
honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy…
Just choose your preferred method
to show your support below support
We are being heavily censored. Please share this article…
Categories: Breaking News, Did You Know?, World News
Einstein was never peer reviewed.
Brin
Who would have willingly taken on that “sinecure”….
Because he was a fraud?
Christopher Jon Bjerknes books cover it.
Rhoda – Dr Malcolm Kendrick, for one, spilled these beans in “Doctoring Data” – underpinning his 30 + year research into CVD, cholesterol, saturated fats, statins; recommend you also get in touch with Dr Zoe Harcombe, Nutritionist, who also puts the skids under “peer reviewed” studies, in a professional but very adroit fashion, about aspects of diets and related issues.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/
‘‘…This whole idea of, ‘You’ve got to have a peer reviewed paper’. A peer review is just to make sure you stay in line.” – orthopaedic surgeon Lee Merritt
www (dot) brighteon (dot) com/298fc1d3-8d46-48bf-97bb-fd4c5f351b77 (29:21) [minus spaces]
It depends on who owns the publishing house same as who publishes protestant ‘bibles’.
Not all papers submitted are published.
If the publisher has an agenda, they select the papers that confirm their bias.
If your business is a ‘Climate Science’ journal, you will not select papers that debunk your business model.
Once the Chinese government controls Oxford and Cambridge (Catholic Church foundations), rest assured the science itself will be corrupted.
That is not the only area where there is a problem with peer review. Peer review is used to stifle all debate on origins. Creation scientists are frozen out, no matter how meritorious their research, and the scientific method does not apply.
Well said Pat.
The bubble effect.
Peer review has been hijacked & was never a good system. It is a form of consensus which is NOT acceptable i actual science. REMEMBER how consensus & peer review worked for Ignaz Semmelweis when he claimed that physicians should wash their hands before delivering babies, after dissecting cadavers? Or how about peer review when Galileo claimed the earth orbited the sun? Should we return to what these ‘peers’ claimed? As Einstein mentioned, it would only take one scientist to prove him wrong if he had adequate proof. Reproducible PROOF is what real science is about & it is what is needed for logic & rational though to be accurate as well. Political Science is about manipulating the masses though. Remember how Climate-gate discovered the “scientists” colluding to stop opposing facts from being published? What do we want ruling our lives?
Got to be about the best comment I have read so far today!
Many thanks.
As to your question; “what do we want ruling our lives?” My answer in the affirmative is God in Christ.
The movement of heavenly bodies was by Copernicus and Keppler, not Gallileo.
Stop learning history from the Guardian, like Prof Brian Cox who also fell for that Marxist journalistic hoax.
If you admire Einstein (One Stone, brain cell), check out Christopher Jon Bjerknes books on his failures.
Scientists don’t care what journalists think.
‘Peer review’ entered the journalists lexicon when Delingpole made himself look silly.
However, CCP agents entering Western universities is a concern. They will corrupt Truth for power and profit.
The invention of the geo stationary satellite (1945) was considered to whacky fo the physics and space journals. It was eventually published, but in “Electronics and Wireless World”. New original science often scares peer reviewers.