1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.




PEER review fallacy persists.......and will be used to control you eventually.

Discussion in 'Educating Doctors' started by Jack Kruse, Mar 11, 2019.

  1. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    As debates continue about citing preprints vs 'peer-reviewed' papers, important to note that there are other experiments that undermine the [flawed] premise that peer-reviewed = established = citable

    The reviewers do not believe the biophysics because they do not even know it is physically possible and plausible in biology for this to happen. Is it no wonder why our chronic disease metric grow as the experts sit by and argue about things they are DEAD wrong about?

    The public good and health are being destroyed by how we do science today.

    Reviewers found this not believable and technically flawed. Yet e-life chose to publish it. I agree with that decision to publish it and then let people dissect the paper themselves without the interference of the editors of PEER panel. If the paper sucks we'll figure it out. This is how public reviews of restaurants close bad restaurants fast in New Orleans. Not publishing controversial papers buries critical gems found in labs.

    Of course, the idea that all peer-reviewed literature is perfect is not true. But the expert scientist will fight hard on social media to tell the public it is reliable because it is part of their lifeblood and career. They are protecting their turf, but fail to realize this turf is OWNED by the PUBLIC who pays for this research. We have copious amounts of evidence it is horribly flawed. But just because it doesn't work perfectly, doesn't mean it's not working some of the time or the majority of the time. Remember that scientists are NOT the only users of the scientific literature!

    Press folks, reporters, funding agencies (not necessarily govt), patients, policymakers may not appreciate the caveats or read the reviewers' comments. I'm not convinced this improves the perceived credibility of the literature. IMO, editors should not be gatekeepers in science that is new or cutting edge. Their biases limit the production of innovative science experiments.

    The whole point of that e-Life journal experiment was that ALL papers sent out to be peer reviewed would be published with reviews, good or bad. This is the way things should work. The challenge is to get the mechanics right and to show people how & why it’s better for the public.

    Regulating G protein-coupled receptors by topological inversion was the paper.


    Why do I support the publishing of the paper?

    None of the idiot scientist critiquing this review process on social media understands how 1G-5G cause topologic inversion.......and this paper shows its blood and guts of how the process can be broken in cells by nnEMF. The paper is flawed but the mechanism is so clear of how topologic changes induce downstream effects in cells that will lead to emergent diseases and symptoms in many patients shocking patients and doctors.


    This topic of topology is going to be a critical understanding of any Black Swan soon.........It is why Kawasaki's disease and measles are being confused in ER's all over America now and Big Pharma will use the confusion to push for mandatory vaccines. Know one see the end game until they feel it in their biology.

    This is a wake-up call kind of paper that reminds of this passage from Atlas Shrugged.



    Another interesting passage from Atlas Shrugged deeply related to recent conversations with several friends of mine in the medical profession.
  2. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

  3. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    There are many things that seem impossible to expert scientist only so long as "the ignorant" does not attempt them or understand them. This is why cutting edge papers never see the light of day. Bias blocks their review by eyes who need Windex sprayed on them.
  4. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

    Could measles outbreaks be confused with Kawasaki's Disease in a world of 5G? Yep, because both are caused by alterations in topology. My July 2015 webinar on KD was specifically made to warn clinicians and patients of what is coming to ER's with 5G toxicity in our ionosphere above our heads. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5937975/
    The cause of this extinction is hidden yet, the effect is visible to all mankind = use of the spectrum of light outside the visible to excess to communicate.
    recoen likes this.
  5. Jack Kruse

    Jack Kruse Administrator

Share This Page