Re: 209:
Agreed. There is a problem with peer reviewed research cutting corners, or being done and utilizing normative science. A research class I was in identified and contacted a government agency that was using normative science to create a negative impression about Barred Owls regarding territory overlap with Spotted Owls.
...a problem with peer reviewed research cutting corners, or being done and utilizing normative science. ...
___________________________________________
There are investigations past & present, indicating: paid reviewers with compensation contingent on findings;’ghost’ reviewers who, for compensation, rubber-stamp a paper one way or another without even actually reading/analyzing the study in question. It has been shown in the case of Tess Lawrie’s Ivermectine study that the main reviewer was coerced/compensated to throw shade on her team’s results.
Journals are financed by the pharmaceutical companies. IIRC, BMJ had to admit to their misleading retractions when confronted. Reviewers knowingly omit or minimize their conflicts of interest.
Due to pharma ad dollars, the legacy state global media glosses or ignores all of this. It is well-known while lip service is paid to “Peer Review”.
It is scandalous. It invites distrust.
I was a medical massage therapist for 11 years, my husband for over 20. We worked with/on referral from MDs & PTs. We were so on-board *evidence-based medicine*. Today, I cringe when I hear that phrase. We were present at case presentation meetings. I can report that I was present when a blinded case was discussed. I sat there, amazed at the words coming out of respected professionals mouths, because I WAS THE PATIENT being discussed! I was already a bit jaundiced re: the medical profession and that was bitter icing on the cake.
Later, I told one MD I was the patient discussed. He turned bright red, stammered, mumbled an apology and hurried off. Never worked with him again and soon after returned to the business I had before and had been keeping alive while maintaining a busy practice.
It is not just *cutting corners* or *utilizing normative science*. It is elitism and ego writ large. It is a hierarchy of the self-anointed Elect. It reeks of contempt for the patient combined with a cavalier attitude toward their own shortcomings. There is a practice of reverse omerta, where the prevailing authorities must never be ill-characterized in public and only in a circumspect code in private. And that was back in a time when these men were all self-employed practitioners in solo or joint private practices. I can imagine what it must be like in a corporate environment where they are employees of an institution dependent upon government & Big Pharma support.
And what they have wrought speaks for itself.