The Religion Of Scientism: A Steaming Pile of Peer Review


What Hubble is literally saying in his book, is that the results do not match the theory, so therefore, the results will have to be changed.

From the above testimony of Edwin Hubble, it’s clear to see how personal beliefs and dogmas can influence the outcome of new findings without the trusting public ever knowing the hidden agendas.

I get numerous Pseudo-Science Wiki Warriors smugly drawing any debate to a halt by simply using the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority. These disciples of Scienctism merely need to demand “Peer Reviewed” papers and studies or we should yield to their ‘superior’ evidence and intelligence. In this developing Technocratic world, is it not becoming more and more vital to hold our ‘knowledge dictators’ to the standards they claim to employ themselves.

Not only have we been lied to about our cosmology, history, and anthropology, but also the very profession most people blindly entrust their well being to, the medical profession. Although the shape of our world is important, as is whether or not giant lizards came before us, or if it all started with a big bang from nothing – all huge subjects to debate which have a massive bearing on our lives, however, none of them directly affect our health and well being as much as the lofty claims of the synthetic medicine industry.

To blindly trust a medical professional (from any training discipline) is to relinquish responsibility for your health and possibly your life. This decision is purely based on the assumption that said professionals know what they are doing and endeavour to work in your best interests.

The bedrock of this lofty position of godlike knowledge and understanding is the Peer Review Process, which is sold to us as the pinnacle of scholarly fact checking. In reality it’s nothing more than ‘jobs for the boys’ or as Ken Wheeler puts it…

…peer review means you kiss a bunch of ass-holes of people above you, you agree with their crap. And all those people did, was agree with crap before them. It’s a giant circle jerk of stupidity, ignorance and hubris[2]

In a more formal light, we are told…

“Origin of the peer review process
Most often authors date the advent of what we now call editorial peer review to the 1752 Royal Society of London’s development of a “Committee on Papers” to oversee the review of text for publication in the journal Philosophical Transactions. Others insist the Royal Society of Edinburgh had a similar system in place as early as 1731. Peer review pre-dates the invention of the scholarly journal.  Early scientists circulated letters among their peers or read papers in society meetings to report the results of their investigations in hopes of response.  Initially peer review was designed to assist editors in selection of manuscripts, rather than to authenticate findings, and the responsibility for integrity relied on the author.  The origin of the process is from state censorship as developed through practices of state supported academies, as well as an attempt to augment the authority of a journal’s editor.  It was not until the middle of the 20th century that medical journals used outside reviewers to vet manuscripts.  This long history makes it difficult to imagine scholarship without the process. (Fitzpatrick)” [1]

Note how this process is designed to assist editors rather than to authenticate findings, and that the responsibility for integrity relied on the author. Can anyone else see a problem here?

Don’t take Dr. Marcia Angell or my word for it …what follows is a collection of Peer Review headlines, mainly from the medial profession, as this was my chosen focus, but can be applied to most modern pseudo-science professions today.

Why Science Is Not Necessarily Self Correcting |Scientific Credibility: A Fluctuating Trajectory

Authored by John P. A. Ioannidis ( @teppofelin ) Professor at Oxford Saïd | Oxford University

First Published November 7, 2012


The ability to self-correct is considered a hallmark of science. However, self-correction does not always happen to scientific evidence by default. The trajectory of scientific credibility can fluctuate over time, both for defined scientific fields and for science at-large. History suggests that major catastrophes in scientific credibility are unfortunately possible and the argument that “it is obvious that progress is made” is weak. Careful evaluation of the current status of credibility of various scientific fields is important in order to understand any credibility deficits and how one could obtain and establish more trustworthy results. Efficient and unbiased replication mechanisms are essential for maintaining high levels of scientific credibility. Depending on the types of results obtained in the discovery and replication phases, there are different paradigms of research: optimal, self-correcting, false nonreplication, and perpetuated fallacy. In the absence of replication efforts, one is left with unconfirmed (genuine) discoveries and unchallenged fallacies. In several fields of investigation, including many areas of psychological science, perpetuated and unchallenged fallacies may comprise the majority of the circulating evidence. I catalogue a number of impediments to self-correction that have been empirically studied in psychological science. Finally, I discuss some proposed solutions to promote sound replication practices enhancing the credibility of scientific results as well as some potential disadvantages of each of them. Any deviation from the principle that seeking the truth has priority over any other goals may be seriously damaging to the self-correcting functions of science.”

CIA Director everything the american public believe is false quote william casey Screenshot from 2015-09-25 13:09:35.png

CIA owns everyone in the media quote by director of CIA Screenshot from 2016-10-22 13:35:12.png

Don’t talk to me about ‘Peer Review’.

Thr following is mainly centred on the Medical industry, but is rife on all areas of soi-disant ‘Science’

Major Medical Journal Retracts Numerous Scientific Papers After Fake Peer-Review Scandal

“A major publisher of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications. As The Washington Post reports, BioMed Central – a well-known publication of peer-reviewed journals – shows a partial list of the retracted articles suggests most of them were written by scholars at universities in China. The Committee on Publication Ethics stated, it “has become aware of systematic, inappropriate attempts to manipulate the peer review processes of several journals… that need to be retracted.”

Peer review is the vetting process designed to guarantee the integrity of scholarly articles by having experts read them and approve or disapprove them for publication. With researchers increasingly desperate for recognition, citations and professional advancement, the whole peer-review system has come under scrutiny in recent years for a host of flaws and irregularities, ranging from lackadaisical reviewing to cronyism to outright fraud.

And as The Washington Post reports,
  BioMed Central, based in the United Kingdom, which puts out 277 peer-reviewed journals of scholarly medical and science articles has retracted 43 papers because of “fabricated” peer reviews amid signs of a broader fake peer review racket affecting many more publications…”

sciece peer falsifiable Screenshot from 2016-12-21 23:54:53.png

‘Evidence-Based’ Medicine: A Coin’s Flip Worth of Certainty


Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False

“In the past few years more professionals have come forward to share a truth that, for many people, proves difficult to swallow. One such authority is Dr. Richard Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet – considered to be one of the most well respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world.

Dr. Horton recently published a statement declaring that a lot of published research is in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” (source)

This is quite distrubing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more.

It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t “peer-reviewed” and doesn’t appear in a “credible” medical journal, but as we can see, “peer-reviewed” doesn’t really mean much anymore. “Credible” medical journals continue to lose their tenability in the eyes of experts and employees of the journals themselves, like Dr. Horton.”

FE Neil degrasse tyson science is true whether you belive it or not Screenshot from 2015-08-02 18_05_39.png

Independent scientists WARN: ‘Most currently published research findings are FALSE…’

“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of [The New] England Journal of Medicine” — These are the words of Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long-time editor-in-chief of The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed science journals in the world.

The Lancet, another top, well respected peer-reviewed medical journal also publishes research findings that are unreliable and many times false. The current editor-in-chief, Dr. Richard Horton recently spoke out about the fake science often published in the prestigious medical journal. “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness,” he warns, as reported by”

Publishing: The peer-review scam

When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

Cat Ferguson, Adam Marcus & Ivan Oransky 26 November 2014

“In 2012, he confronted Moon, who readily admitted that the reviews had come in so quickly because he had written many of them himself. The deception had not been hard to set up. Supuran’s journal and several others published by Informa Healthcare in London invite authors to suggest potential reviewers for their papers. So Moon provided names, sometimes of real scientists and sometimes pseudonyms, often with bogus e-mail addresses that would go directly to him or his colleagues. His confession led to the retraction of 28 papers by several Informa journals, and the resignation of an editor.

Moon’s was not an isolated case. In the past 2 years, journals have been forced to retract more than 110 papers in at least 6 instances of peer-review rigging. What all these cases had in common was that researchers exploited vulnerabilities in the publishers’ computerized systems to dupe editors into accepting manuscripts, often by doing their own reviews. The cases involved publishing behemoths Elsevier, Springer, Taylor & Francis, SAGE and Wiley, as well as Informa, and they exploited security flaws that — in at least one of the systems — could make researchers vulnerable to even more serious identity theft. “For a piece of software that’s used by hundreds of thousands of academics worldwide, it really is appalling,” says Mark Dingemanse, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, who has used some of these programs to publish and review papers.”

george bernard shaw quote re science and the flat earth Screenshot from 2016-10-06 11:52:56.png

The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility

Dubious studies on the danger of hurricane names may be laughable. But bad science can cause bad policy.

July 13, 2014

“Academic publishing was rocked by the news on July 8 that a company called Sage Publications is retracting 60 papers from its Journal of Vibration and Control, about the science of acoustics. The company said a researcher in Taiwan and others had exploited peer review so that certain papers were sure to get a positive review for placement in the journal. In one case, a paper’s author gave glowing reviews to his own work using phony names.

Acoustics is an important field. But in biomedicine faulty research and a dubious peer-review process can have life-or-death consequences. In June, Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Institutes of Health and responsible for $30 billion in annual government-funded research, held a meeting to discuss ways to ensure that more published scientific studies and results are accurate. According to a 2011 report in the monthly journal Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, the results of two-thirds of 67 key studies analyzed by Bayer researchers from 2008-2010 couldn’t be reproduced.

That finding was a bombshell. Replication is a fundamental tenet of science, and the hallmark of peer review is that other researchers can look at data and methodology and determine the work’s validity. Dr. Collins and co-author Dr. Lawrence Tabak highlighted the problem in a January 2014 article in Nature. “What hope is there that other scientists will be able to build on such work to further biomedical progress,” if no one can check and replicate the research, they wrote.”

Copernicus quote don't believe astronomy Screenshot from 2015-11-05 22_33_01.png


Major publisher retracts 64 scientific papers in fake peer review outbreak

August 18, 2015

“Made-up identities assigned to fake e-mail addresses. Real identities stolen for fraudulent reviews. Study authors who write glowing reviews of their own research, then pass them off as an independent report.

These are the tactics of peer review manipulators, an apparently growing problem in the world of academic publishing.

Peer review is supposed to be the pride of the rigorous academic publishing process. Journals get every paper reviewed and approved by experts in the field, ensuring that problematic research doesn’t make it to print.

But increasingly journals are finding out that those supposedly authoritative checks are being rigged.

In the latest episode of the fake peer review phenomenon, one of the world’s largest academic publishers, Springer, has retracted 64 articles from 10 of its journals after discovering that their reviews were linked to fake e-mail addresses. The announcement comes nine months after 43 studies were retracted by BioMed Central (one of Springer’s imprints) for the same reason.”

Big Bang quote Screenshot from 2015-10-06 22_09_00.png

Up To 50% Of Govt-Funded Scientific Research Is Totally Flawed, Says New Report

“Government funding is leading to scientific research that can’t be replicated, according to a new report detailing growing problems in the scientific community.Published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), the report illustrates how scientific research is susceptible to bias when it is funded by the government and how a considerable number of scientific studies cannot be replicated or reproduced. As a result, government policy based on the research isn’t based on scientific methods and cannot be accepted as fact.

“Medical research, psychology, and economics are all in the grip of a ‘reproducibility crisis.’ A pharmaceutical company attempting to confirm the findings of 53 landmark cancer studies was successful in only six instances, a failure rate of 89%. ” Donna Laframboise, a journalist who authored the report, said in a statement. “Government policies can’t be considered evidence-based if the evidence on which they depend hasn’t been independently verified, yet the vast majority of academic research is never put to this test.”

Laframboise and the GWPF suspect that environmental and climate science are also in the grips of a similar crisis of reproducibility — much of climate modelling is done via supercomputers and therefore cannot be easily checked by peer reviewers or the general public.”

einstein quote on maths and reality Screenshot from 2015-09-10 14_11_50.png

George Ellis and Joe Silk attack untestable cosmological theories in Nature

“This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.). In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid and cosmologist Sean Carroll have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.”


Twitter peer review blog

Words are magic

A minor dialogue on Twitter cracked me up today. To put it in context, some scientists and science fetishists on Twitter were in an uproar over my assertion that SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW was not only unreliable, but was nothing more than glorified proofreading. They argued that SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW was all about replicating experiments and testing conclusions, not merely reading over the material in order to make sure the author wasn’t smoking crack.

One guy even demanded to know if I knew what “peer” meant. Because, you know, that totally changes the process.

Finally, I asked a scientist how many peer reviews he had done. Between 10 and 30 was the answer. Fair enough. Then I asked him how many experiments he had replicated as part of those SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEWS.

None. Or to put in scientific mathematical terms, zero. Also known as “the null set”.

And what did he actually do in scientifically peer-reviewing these papers? Well, he read them and occasionally made some suggestions for improving them.”


The vaccination policy and the Code of Practice of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI): are they at odds?

By Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD BSEM March 2011
The Health Hazards of Disease Prevention

Neural Dynamics Research Group, Dept. of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of British

Columbia, 828 W. 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC, V5Z 1L8


No pharmaceutical drug is devoid of risks from adverse reactions and vaccines are no exception. According to the world’s leading drug regulatory authority, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), vaccines represent a special category of drugs in that they are generally given to healthy individuals and often to prevent a disease to which an individual may never be exposed [1]. This, according to the FDA, places extra emphasis on vaccine safety. Universally, regulatory authorities are responsible for ensuring that new vaccines go through proper scientific evaluation before they are approved. An equal responsibility rests on the medical profession to promote vaccinations but only with those vaccines whose safety and efficacy has been demonstrated to be statistically significant. Furthermore, vaccination is a medical intervention and as such, it should be carried out with the full consent of those who are being subjected to it. This necessitates an objective disclosure of the known or foreseeable risks and benefits and, where applicable, a description of alternative courses of treatment. In cases where children and infants are involved, full consent with regards to vaccination should be given by the parents.
Deliberately concealing information from the parents for the sole purpose of getting them to comply with an “official” vaccination schedule could thus be considered as a form of ethical violation or misconduct. Official documents obtained from the UK Department of Health (DH) and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) reveal that the British health authorities have been engaging in such practice for the last 30 years, apparently for the sole purpose of protecting the national vaccination program.

theoretical science from earth is not a globe twitter Screenshot from 2016-06-11 15:18:36.png

40 percent of scientists admit that fraud is always or often a factor that contributes to irreproducibile research

1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility

Survey sheds light on the ‘crisis’ rocking research.

“More than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist’s experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature‘s survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research.

The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproducibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant ‘crisis’ of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature.

crisis in science peer review Screenshot from 2016-12-21 23:14:38.png

Failing to reproduce results is a rite of passage, says Marcus Munafo, a biological psychologist at the University of Bristol, UK, who has a long-standing interest in scientific reproducibility. When he was a student, he says, “I tried to replicate what looked simple from the literature, and wasn’t able to. Then I had a crisis of confidence, and then I learned that my experience wasn’t uncommon.”

Creationist receives six-figure legal settlement from public university

 ‘We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

“A creationist scholar recently received a six-figure settlement from California State University Northridge, a payout that resolved a 2-year-old lawsuit that alleged the scholar had been fired after discovering soft tissue on a triceratops horn and publishing his findings.

The plaintiff, Mark Armitage, had alleged religious discrimination and a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act in his suit, claiming in court documents that after his discovery – which supports a young Earth theory – some professors went on a successful “witchhunt” against him.

Armitage’s attorney, Alan Reinach, called the settlement “groundbreaking,” noting that in his decades practicing law he is unaware of any other favorable settlement of this nature on behalf of a creationist.

‘We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!’

club of rome quote Screenshot from 2016-08-17 20:34:40.png


So lets look at some Peer Reviewed Papers, this one looks very apt for this blog….



Oh dear, seems we have to pay for the ‘good stuff’


pay for science carl smythe Screenshot from 2016-10-19 15:09:42.png

This about sums up where we are headed in our Brave New World:


Meet the Borg

twitter not a peer Screenshot from 2016-06-06 13:05:08.png


moon phases caused by moon shadow Screenshot from 2016-12-21 23:35:51.png

Remember the following and you can’t go too wrong

FE science verses theoretical science chart.jpg


2 thoughts on “The Religion Of Scientism: A Steaming Pile of Peer Review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: