“So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.”
One only has to watch the stock of a pharmaceutical company when it mentions positive or negative clinical results for a new drug, to understand why peer review standards will fall prey to those with vested interests.
Combine that with the lax approach to drug advertising on MSM (who has become severely compromised by their sponsors), or the laws surrounding sponsor's vaccine liability. Peer review is simply in the food chain to be manipulated by the vested interests.
there is currently a new 'injection' available which claims to prevent HIV. Does anyone know anything about this regarding 'peer review' if such an option for this procedure is even possible? It is being vigorously promoted in South Africa. I have also heard very negative reports regards ARV's. Are they simply using 'hiv' sufferers as guinea pigs? It seems pretty obvious that given the nefarious dealings of we all know WHO, that 'subverting' peer review would certainly be an option....
My understanding is that they rarely if not ever, are provided data. Instead the data is tabulated and condensed into a summary form.
Reasons not to present the data include;
1- Volume of data: Raw data sets can be extremely large and unwieldy.
2- Confidentiality and privacy: Raw data may contain sensitive information, especially in fields like medical research,
3- Focus on results and methodology: Peer reviewers are tasked primarily with evaluating the study’s methodology, analysis, and conclusions.
4- Trust in authors’ data handling: Reviewers assume that the researchers have processed and analyzed the raw data correctly, as raw data is often very complex
5- Time constraints: Sifting through raw data would require significantly more time and effort beyond their usual role of assessing the scientific merits.
Looks like somebody knew this way back in 2006.
“So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
One only has to watch the stock of a pharmaceutical company when it mentions positive or negative clinical results for a new drug, to understand why peer review standards will fall prey to those with vested interests.
Combine that with the lax approach to drug advertising on MSM (who has become severely compromised by their sponsors), or the laws surrounding sponsor's vaccine liability. Peer review is simply in the food chain to be manipulated by the vested interests.
there is currently a new 'injection' available which claims to prevent HIV. Does anyone know anything about this regarding 'peer review' if such an option for this procedure is even possible? It is being vigorously promoted in South Africa. I have also heard very negative reports regards ARV's. Are they simply using 'hiv' sufferers as guinea pigs? It seems pretty obvious that given the nefarious dealings of we all know WHO, that 'subverting' peer review would certainly be an option....
My understanding is that they rarely if not ever, are provided data. Instead the data is tabulated and condensed into a summary form.
Reasons not to present the data include;
1- Volume of data: Raw data sets can be extremely large and unwieldy.
2- Confidentiality and privacy: Raw data may contain sensitive information, especially in fields like medical research,
3- Focus on results and methodology: Peer reviewers are tasked primarily with evaluating the study’s methodology, analysis, and conclusions.
4- Trust in authors’ data handling: Reviewers assume that the researchers have processed and analyzed the raw data correctly, as raw data is often very complex
5- Time constraints: Sifting through raw data would require significantly more time and effort beyond their usual role of assessing the scientific merits.
(Chatgpt)