Peer Review of Scientific Papers: Impedes Science by Rejecting Papers Outside the Narrative?

re: ethics in medicine
re: follow the money
re: confirmation bias
re: Peer Review of Medical/Scientific Papers has become a Farce Driven by Political and Financial Concerns

No information can be trusted. One has to either hallucinate truth, or go by one's own judgment and bullshit meter... which itself might be a hallucination. —Lloyd

You often see “news” that makes statements like “peer reviewed paper”, and “not yet peer reviewed”.

Check your premises.

All human psychology works against objective peer review including follow the money, not invented here, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, the psychological principle of reciprocity, etc.

• Peer review impedes science and debate by rejecting papers outside the narrative.
• Peer review is a buddy system, not a random process.
• Who wants their paper reviewed by someone with opposing views?
• Maybe some bad math gets caught, maybe not. Maybe idiotic models get caught, maybe not. History shows often “not”. Faked data? Happens all the time.
• A peer-reviewed paper may be more about whether it is interesting, or supports the narrative, who’s involved, etc.
• Real peer review with a high level of skepticism (aka science), and formulating serious criticisms would be very time consuming. And offensive to many narratives.
• Approving a controversial paper could be career-ending in some areas, eg climate change, genetics vs intelligence, etc.

Finally, an editor who publishes a paper that questions cash cow industries (eg climate change “science”) will be summarily fired.