24 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

  1. The Lancet publishes over a thousand articles and reviews per year, a massive undertaking given the technical complexity of these articles. They are not going to get every one right, so it’s pretty easy for its detractors to find screwups to put on display.

    Although I still don’t know why The Lancet was so slow to retract Wakefield’s infamous “vaccines cause autism” paper after the co-authors had withdrawn their support for the paper.

    1. “The Lancet publishes over a thousand articles and reviews per year, a massive undertaking given the technical complexity of these articles. They are not going to get every one right, so it’s pretty easy for its detractors to find screwups to put on display.”

      They are also not going to publish anything that goes against The Narrative…because that would endanger their funding *from the pharmaceutical industry*. They are more concerned with political science than medical science, with several scandals to their name already (from ‘bodies with vaginas’ to letters supporting Gaza, to Iraq to Afghanistan to PACE to the WHO and the lab leak to hydroxychloroquine to gun control, etc etc).

      Since they are utterly unable to *stay in their lane* and concentrate on what they are (supposedly) experts at, they are best ignored, like all the other CORRUPT publications that Killer Marmot loves so much and shills for every chance he gets (NEJM, BMJ, etc).

      “Although I still don’t know why The Lancet was so slow to retract Wakefield’s infamous “vaccines cause autism” paper after the co-authors had withdrawn their support for the paper.”

      Because they are NOT TO BE TRUSTED, that’s why.

        1. “People want to discredit The Lancet because it often publishes results they don’t want to hear, but it’s conspiratorial BS. Most of their funding is from subscriptions. And they have published many articles that are critical of the industry:”

          Try their Wikipedia page for a better idea of how many times they have been caught and discredited.

          (even a source as well known to be left-leaning as Wikipedia can’t defend this organization)

          1. A handful, out of tens of thousands of articles through the years.

            And even then, I wouldn’t say they were discredited. Every good journal must, from time to time, retract an article. It’s the poor journals that never take responsibility for their content.

        2. The Lancet discredits itself….but that happens when an organization sells its soul to politics….it doesn’t make politics cleaner, it makes science dirtier. The Lancet is a gatekeeper.

          1. And how do you know The Lancet has sold its soul? What evidence do you have?

        3. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”.

          Richard Horton,
          Editor in chief of the Lancet.

          1. I agree. There are many bad studies out there, fueled by predatory journals that will accept anything resembling a scientific paper for a fee, with little or no peer review.

            But there are also many good studies, and there are not hard to identify. For the medical sciences, those studies are large, controlled, randomized, and double blind. Their methods of statistical analysis are predefined before data collection begins, so that researchers don’t cherry pick a method that gives the “right” answer. The researchers have no conflict of interest. And the studies are published in reputable peer-reviewed journals.

            And yes, The Lancet is one of those reputable journals. It occasionally slips up, but on the whole it’s product is high quality.

        1. GYM, why don’t you surprize everyone and post a comment that isn’t insulting and vacuous.

          1. “Doesn’t do context” is hardly an insult. Hell, I don’t do context. That’s not an insult, it’s a rider in my standard contract.

            And if his comments weren’t vacuous, they wouldn’t pick dust off the carpet so effectively.

  2. Let’s they were wetting themselves
    To get that Ivermecten report out.they didn’t give a shit if it was bogus.
    By the time they fess up its mission accompkished by media and pharma.

    Or should I say settled science.

  3. I’m so glad our medical experts weren’t looking for a cure for cancer rather than trying to create new illnesses.
    KM. GFY. I mean it. Just FOAD.

  4. No.. The incompetent, greedy, political scumbags, just don’t like people talking back with facts.. Misinformation no less.. As in, not inline with the government line..

    What this has to do with the truth is nothing.. Politicians and government agencies care more for themselves than the Donkeys they rule over..

  6. Nice try, many of their “Studies” on Covid disappeared, wonder how much-if any big pharma money was funneled their way? I have no faith in the medical profession none-be your own advocate because big pharma wants some new customers.

    1. “many of their “Studies” on Covid disappeared”

      Whose studies? Which studies?

  7. Reputations take years to build but not nearly that long to destroy.

    For me, the East Anglia ‘ClimateGate’ fiasco was what let the cat out of the bag. For the first time, we had actual *evidence* of corruption and coercion in the ‘peer review’ process. We had people actually conspiring to threaten the scientific journal publishers with censure and boycotts if they dared publish anything critical of The Narrative. The Narrative that KEEPS THE MONEY FLOWING must never be allowed to be endangered in any way.

    ‘Peer review’ became ‘pal review’ that day, and I lost all respect for these people and their goals.

    Ironically, there are many people who attempt to counter that with, “Well, what else can we do? It’s the only system we have for validating scientific theories!” My response to that is simple: investigate any and all reports of collusion by the journal editors and FIRE those who admit responsibility. Prosecute those who don’t.

    You want me to go back to believing your reviews to be honest, truthful and factual? You want me to accept that from now on you will no longer deliberately distort the actual science and censor anything that threatens The Narrative? PROVE IT. Come clean. Show me that you have changed. Otherwise, just FOAD…

    1. Pelech makes some good points, but his claims of decreased female fertility after mRNA vaccination are likely spurious:

      ‘https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10538453/

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation