The research that scientists publish affects their job prospects, livelihood, reputation, and even friendships. Given the explosion of scientific publications, it is easy to see how the peer-review process can go awry.
The Epoch Times spoke with a professor who spent more than 25 years in a top 10 medical school. This scientist did not want to be named for fear of reprisals.
“I call it sneer review,” the scientist said. “There is tremendous bias. Reviewers ignore data that doesn’t fit with what they already believe.”
The scientist said that certain fields have fewer problems with special interests than others, and certain topics—including the safety of modern medicine and, especially, the safety of vaccines—tend to push ideological buttons.
“The idea in science should be that we just push towards finding out the answer. We have a hypothesis, we ask questions, we test the hypotheses, we collect more data,” this scientist said. “That’s how we move forward. But when it gets polarized, the sneer-review phenomenon starts to happen. Then it becomes a more ideological confrontation.”
“People will try to publish total nonsense for ideological reasons,” the scientist added.
When Ideology Drives Decisions
When peer-reviewed studies have the potential to harm multi-billion-dollar industries, they often get retracted, several scientists told The Epoch Times.
“Follow the silenced science,” said Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, CEO and Director of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). Lyons-Weiler has published more than 50 peer-reviewed studies on a variety of topics. He recently had a controversial study retracted.
It is especially difficult to publish research that calls vaccine safety into question in the first place, Lyons-Weiler said, and these studies are often summarily retracted by controversy-adverse editors.
“They tend to be retracted after critique by anonymous critics,” Lyons-Weiler said. “This is a problematic new development. The journals are retracting based on criticism from anonymous reviewers, instead of publishing the critique and allowing the authors to rebut. That means the critics’ comments are not peer-reviewed.”
The retraction may happen a week after the science is published, or more than 10 years.
For sure it has been a slippery slope to utter madness. I’m not ready to condemn things I proved to myself and others in a lab and observed with my own eyes. But, has Virology, Bacteriology, public health, medicine and all the rest proved lately how wrong they can be? Absolutely. A simultaneously perfect example of the law of unintended consequences and the observation that correlation is not causation.
The conflict with bacteria comes with travelers, moving from local biome to another, and all these chemical experiments are more towards wiping out the conflicts, which could wipeout humans!.
https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/new-peer-review-why-unbiased-science-now-often-misleading
‘Sneer-Review’
The research that scientists publish affects their job prospects, livelihood, reputation, and even friendships. Given the explosion of scientific publications, it is easy to see how the peer-review process can go awry.
The Epoch Times spoke with a professor who spent more than 25 years in a top 10 medical school. This scientist did not want to be named for fear of reprisals.
“I call it sneer review,” the scientist said. “There is tremendous bias. Reviewers ignore data that doesn’t fit with what they already believe.”
The scientist said that certain fields have fewer problems with special interests than others, and certain topics—including the safety of modern medicine and, especially, the safety of vaccines—tend to push ideological buttons.
“The idea in science should be that we just push towards finding out the answer. We have a hypothesis, we ask questions, we test the hypotheses, we collect more data,” this scientist said. “That’s how we move forward. But when it gets polarized, the sneer-review phenomenon starts to happen. Then it becomes a more ideological confrontation.”
“People will try to publish total nonsense for ideological reasons,” the scientist added.
When Ideology Drives Decisions
When peer-reviewed studies have the potential to harm multi-billion-dollar industries, they often get retracted, several scientists told The Epoch Times.
“Follow the silenced science,” said Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, CEO and Director of the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). Lyons-Weiler has published more than 50 peer-reviewed studies on a variety of topics. He recently had a controversial study retracted.
It is especially difficult to publish research that calls vaccine safety into question in the first place, Lyons-Weiler said, and these studies are often summarily retracted by controversy-adverse editors.
“They tend to be retracted after critique by anonymous critics,” Lyons-Weiler said. “This is a problematic new development. The journals are retracting based on criticism from anonymous reviewers, instead of publishing the critique and allowing the authors to rebut. That means the critics’ comments are not peer-reviewed.”
The retraction may happen a week after the science is published, or more than 10 years.
For sure it has been a slippery slope to utter madness. I’m not ready to condemn things I proved to myself and others in a lab and observed with my own eyes. But, has Virology, Bacteriology, public health, medicine and all the rest proved lately how wrong they can be? Absolutely. A simultaneously perfect example of the law of unintended consequences and the observation that correlation is not causation.
No virus, now no bacteria, and of course everyone has known for decades, "no Communism."
Can we get rid of fleas, ticks, and mites next?
This is how "utopia" works, folks, and we are nearly there.
UBI, insect meals, implanted micro-nano-chips, "You will be happy, and you will not itch!"
So good to have Christine on Substack! xx
The conflict with bacteria comes with travelers, moving from local biome to another, and all these chemical experiments are more towards wiping out the conflicts, which could wipeout humans!.