Peer review SCIENCE FAIL: Scientific discoveries suppressed due to pride of “experts” and the defense of economic status quo

The current culture of science and its peer review process does not openly embrace new discoveries, innovation, or dissent. Why would conventional scientists, invested in traditional ideas, embrace an outsider’s discovery, which would disrupt the current culture and economics of food, medicine, agriculture? Why would conventional scientists, who have invested years in their work, reward an outsider’s innovations that would render old ways obsolete or even prove current scientific consensus to be treacherous? New scientific discoveries are essentially a threat to industries and investments. Innovative scientific discoveries are a threat to favored dogmas and economic models in food science, agriculture products, immunization, and cancer treatments.

Therefore, the peer review system has been poisoned by the prideful scientists, who do their best to protect their interests. The peer review system is muddled with ego, that uses subtle tactics to censor and push away new scientific discoveries. Some scientists have learned the hard way that their contrarian viewpoints are not allowed passed the gate to the official scientific community.

Dr David Kaplan explains it well: “Peer review is known to engender bias, incompetence, excessive expense, ineffectiveness, and corruption. A surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system.”

Australian physicist Brian Martin exposes the peer review process in his article, Strategies for Dissenting Scientists: “Certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science, when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests. But aside from this sort of routine innovation, science has many similarities to systems of dogma. Dissenters are not welcome. They are ignored, rejected, and sometimes attacked.”

Independent scientist Gary Novak has faced censorship through the peer review process: “Peer review is a form of censorship, which is tyranny over the mind. Censorship does not purify; it corrupts…There is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process.”

After obtaining accolades and financial assurance, scientists lose any incentive to explore and innovate. They feel they must protect their accomplishment and guard their finding. Academic titles and the prestige that comes with being a scientist, has a way of corrupting the person’s character, bloating egos and giving a false sense of “expertise” in their minds. The peer review process is a way for established scientists to censor  new scientific discoveries. The process is easily corrupted. New theories are not welcome for they would challenge and exploit the “settled science.”

The peer review process is guarded by gatekeepers who are, by default, held captive by their own ego and accolades. The experts are naturally biased, unaccountable and will not permit any deviation from the norm. The experts are essentially just guarding what they have, contorting the peer review process in their favor. Bound by confirmation bias, the experts are more apt to censor new discoveries. The ideas that do get accepted by the peer review process and are published are often fashionable ideas, ones that support current dogma. (Related: Scientific fraud published in reputable medical journals has soared more than 1700 percent since 2004, says report.)

Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas, writes: “The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favourable to the ability of getting grants — collecting money and spending it — than to scientific imagination or creativity.”

Scientific innovations that are never fully realized and accepted because of censorship science:

• Clean vaccine research and development, including the elimination of aluminum and mercury from vaccines.
• The need for better crop rotation and diversity to improve nutrition in soil and food (instead of continued monoculture and increasing pesticide use).
• Improving pregnancy outcomes and reducing birth defects by eliminating toxin exposures and increasing whole food nutrition uptake.
• Importance of regenerating and optimizing the immune system for healing cancer (instead of the continued failure of chemotherapy, radiation, and hormone therapy for the suppression of the immune system).

Sources include:

WakingTimes.com

WorldMercuryProject.org

NaturalNews.com

NaturalNews.com