MWK - Science 2 - Peer Review - Jerneja Tomsic

"Knowledge is power, and knowledge shared is power multiplied." Subscribe and share!
For the longest time, and even today, most people believe that ‘Peer Reviewed’ papers are a solid source of scientific information.
Since 2020 we’ve been hearing more people say, “Show me your source!” “Show me a peer reviewed paper; then I’ll believe you.”
In this interview, Jerneja explains how this system is deeply flawed, very corrupt, and it has been this way for decades!
Many scientists have been sounding the alarm for a long time, and there are even studies done on this subject, which reveal the fact that 'science' has become a corrupt machine that does not follow True Science anymore. This corrupt machine pushes away those scientists who DO follow True Science.

By diverting from its actual purpose, the current 'science' has caused people to get sicker and sicker, disrupting or even destroying their lives and livelihoods, instead of making them healthier, and allowing them to thrive.

The Peer Review System has been under scrutiny for many years, even by former editors of scientific journals.

During the interview, Jerneja talked about the reproducibility of data, and she mentioned a peer-reviewed paper of a study done by Merck, where they found that around 70% of medical research data is not reproducible. She was unable to find that specific paper but that is not the only paper discussing this problem. You can find more here:

- “Most scientists can’t replicate studies by their peers” - Nature 2017 study described in BBC news: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778 This is a sentence from this BBC article ""What we see in the published literature is a highly curated version of what's actually happened," he [Marcus Munafo] says."
- “Six factors affecting reproducibility in life science research and how to handle them” – published in Nature portfolio, and written by ATCC (a company selling cell lines that are used in most medical research). https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-019-00004-y
- “A fate of reproducible research” - American Council of Science and Health (ACSH) 2021
https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/05/25/fate-irreproducible-research-15566
- “Why most published research findings are false” - PLOS MEDICINE 2005 by Dr. Ioannidis
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
- “In Psychology and other social sciences, many fail the reproducibility test” -NPR 2018
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/08/27/642218377/in-psychology-and-other-social-sciences-many-studies-fail-the-reproducibility-te
- This Opinion piece is interesting: “How reproducible research can still be wrong.” – Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 2015
https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.1421412111

Another link mentioned in this interview:

Receptor ACE-2: https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jvi.00127-20

Below is the link to the excerpt Jerneja read at the end of the interview. It’s from the first article of a series of four, written by Richard Smith, a former editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ). These articles were published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (March to June 2006), before the release of his book:
1st The trouble with medical journals https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1383755/pdf/0115.pdf
2nd Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/pdf/0178.pdf
3rd Research misconduct: the poisoning of the well https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/014107680609900514
4th Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/epdf/10.1177/014107680609900615

The Comedy of Bog Bang Science - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYKXtkVKBUw

Our friends from mymateworld.com have generously offered this promo code for you to enjoy all their mate products for a 15% discount: MWK15

Thank you, mymateworld!