In the 18th century, French and British societies developed practices for evaluating scientific research collectively to limit the “potential damage from any one individual’s incompetence, bias or prejudice.”
“It was only in the late 20th century that refereeing was rebranded as “peer review”” and The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) determined that the term “peer review’ was first used in 1967. The Royal Society have been “scrutinising” finding since 1830s. [1]
Professionals acknowledge that “most readers read only the title and the abstract of a research paper and very few will go on to read the full paper.” This very fact provides a means for which journals can hide potentially life saving cheap therapies or counter-narrative information from time-poor trusting professionals, just to keep their highly influential, pharmaceutical sponsors happy. [2, 3]
In addition, it has been reported that fake studies, written by ghostwriters, signed off by “credible authors”, and funded by pharma, get published in “peer review” journals! You will find also that journals are not interested in publishing conflicting data, and as such present a “biased sample of the true picture of all of the studies that have been conducted”, unbeknownst to the audience that trusts the perceived credibility of the academic publications.
In June 2020, two prestigious peer review journals, the Lancet and the NEJM, RETRACTED “peer reviewed” published papers. The data used in the studies was from a suspect company owned by a doctor facing 3 malpractice lawsuits. This “published” paper resulted in discrediting a potential treatment for COVID-19 and halting World Health Organisation trails. (See May 22, 2020)
Should we “follow the science” or “follow the money”?