“Peer review is a flawed process, fulll of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works.” Richard Smith, past editor of the BMJ and chief executive of hte BMJ Publishing Group for 13 years.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published. or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasureion this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the NEJM.
Just this week there was a study published that proved the more Covid shots you got the more likely you were to get Covid. The study was requested to be retracted although there was no valid reason given for it to be retracted. It just did not support the narrative that vaccines were “safe and effective”, the lie that is in the process of killing millions.
Stories of research funding bodies and journal peer reviewers rejecting proposed qualitative methods or study findings due to “bias” are not uncommon. Usually, I find this relates to a perception by peer reviewers that the way data have/will be collected or analyzed is too closely aligned with the personal agenda of the researcher (s).
Direct observation (when a mother observes that her baby died within 24 hours of receiving vaccinations) is scorned in favour of “peer-reviewed” and “double-blind” clinical trials by the denizens of scientific and clinical laboratories..
Well, I learned a year ago of a surveyor in the UK who found out that a huge percentage of researchers ADMITTED skewing results in favour of their research sponsor.
Here’s another reason why we should be just as leery of the authoritarian edicts from the “science” brigade as we are their scorned “anecdotal evidence”.