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.
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 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 It is thanks to the peer review system that scores of allegedly thoroughly tested drugs have had to be withdrawn.