Is peer review a problem?

Open thread-ish

I have a very busy week, with both a funeral, and a wedding in my immediate family, so this will be a short post. I will be back next week with plenty of new material, including my inaugural podcast episode.

Today, I was alerted to the following article that appeared yesterday in American Thinker:

Peer Review needs Peer Review

The piece begins with a reference to Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) being interviewed in 2021 about Fauci and gain-of-function research. During this interview, Sen. Paul refers to information found in a peer-reviewed journal. The author of the piece under discussion, who chose to remain anonymous and writes under the pseudonym W. A. Eliot, poses the question: Does the fact of results being peer reviewed actually lend credibility to the results themselves, in and of itself?

From the article (emphasis mine throughout):

Peer review has evolved into a system where a science paper -- no matter how solid and impeccable -- not following the narrative or consensus is likely to get rejected. We witnessed this during COVID-19, where papers on therapeutic drug efficacy, vaccine side effects, deleterious effects of lockdown, etc., were rejected by the more prominent journals (including the most prestigious ones such as the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine) simply for not following the narrative, while junk papers following the narrative were accepted in record time.

Given that the Covid fiasco was likely a planned prequel to the HIV AIDS story, it’s interesting that this author begins this piece with a discussion of the censorship during Covid. I wonder if HIV AIDS will come up.

It has also come to light that Anthony Fauci at NIH/NIAID was in control of much of the nation’s health care research funding. So even if a prominent epidemiologist or virologist not following the narrative gets published, he/she might be deprived of funding -- a death sentence for most.

[…]

These flaws may not change the fact that peer review is better than anything else. The problem is when peer review, and/or political bias by or pressure on the journal editor, is used to control the narrative. This has become a major problem. It has made “Follow the Science” a dark joke.

Conflict of interest, anyone? The article even mentions the fate of Peter Duesberg at the hands of the peer review process. But what is to be done about this gatekeeping of the scientific process, that impedes true innovation?

Or maybe we need alternative journals offering a venue to publish papers with controversial results, but somehow avoiding the fate of Peter Duesberg who, writing in 2009 in the Elsevier publication Medical Hypotheses, contested the narrative of an HIV basis of AIDS. The NIH (not Republicans!) pounced, threatening to remove all Elsevier articles from the National Library of Medicine unless the paper was withdrawn and the usual peer review instituted, and the publisher caved (including firing the editor). Maybe the key is that politicians (like Donald Trump?) need to change the way NIH does business. Let’s acknowledge the problem, then work on a fix.

This article speaks for itself, and I don’t have a lot to add, although I’d caution against putting the fate of medical and scientific advancement in the hands of Donald Trump, who didn’t exactly stand up to the medical establishment during Covid. Perhaps he’s learned his lesson, but I’m not wildly optimistic.

I’d really like to turn it over to you, though. I would love to hear your thoughts on the advantages and pitfalls of the peer review process. Can it be improved, or ought it to be scrapped altogether? Is there a viable alternative and if so, what is that alternative?

To support my work on Substack, please purchase my book for yourself or for a friend, and leave a review on Amazon. You can learn about efforts to ban my book here. You can also buy my new book Almost Cancelled. Or consider becoming a free or paid subscriber!

If you’re a new reader and would like some background as to my views on HIV AIDS, including the “existence” question, please refer to this post and the links contained therein. My interview with Sam Bailey is also a great introduction.