PEER PRESSURE

A critical review of the Peer Reviewed process.

I am keeping an Annual Paid Subscription to just $30 to keep it affordable for all. All your help toward falsifying Virology with Experimental Science is greatly appreciated. Thank you!

Of recent, since we released the first phase of the Control Experiments 2.0 the issue of Peer Review has reared its ugly head once again. So what better time to offload some creative angst (Swear Words) and researched funnies aimed at being my Review of the Peer Review process (Cult). Because that is fundamentally what the Peer Review process is designed to be, a protectorate cult. The agreed upon attributes to a Cult are an Authoritarian Structure, highly cohesive, secluded from the outside world and hostile to Non-Members. It has an initiation, an Indoctrination where certain agreed upon principles must be BELIEVED before entering based not in reality and empirical evidence but on faith and spirituality. Once inculcated it is then part and parcel to vociferously reject the ideas of those non-members and those not sharing those same beliefs.

When compared to the definition of Peer Review, one needs to only swap the simple nomenclature of two interchangeable concepts, that of Science and Experts with that of Religion and Cult Members and you have identically functioning groups. By sheer practical outcome of the Peer Review system, because even if Science does set out to be involved with the truth and understanding of the world around it, through the process of only allowing, in an authoritarian structure, those whom have been indoctrinated into a belief system that the Peer Review Process is a smart way to go about things, they will end up with a total and unmitigated belief system by the end of this vetting process as a matter of course.

This short video here posted by Tony Heller, who has been calling out the Climate Change Scam for some decades now, in it he makes a salient point that when new scientific insights, especially any larger jumps in knowledge or certainly those challenging the orthodoxy, they by definition CANNOT be Peer Review, by the simple notion that there are no Peers to the new subject matter. It is a dumbing down of any really world feedback into an Authoritarian Grey Uniform Blob.

When thinking of literally anything you may buy in your life, a car, a house, clothing, music, artwork; would you prefer it to have been made by a private company or by the State? Of course any rational person would know that (Not that we have actual Free Market capitalism, as it cannot co-exist with the State) “Capitalism”and its varied outcomes and semblance of market forces works to create a colorful and vast array of choices and really is the machination of progress. Compare this to a Russian Concrete Metropolis with service edition Lada, you should get the picture that the choice is simple.

Some of my earliest writings on this platform express my disdain for what I think should be the OLD system that is corrupting the very term/initial definition of Science. Please read for a greater insight as to what I believe is the answer to this corrupt mess we find ourselves in.

So I make no bones about it, I am not interested in submitting the results of the Virology Control Studies Experiments to any Peer Reviewed journals. Would it increase the credibility of the work to the masses, undoubtedly, yes. But it would have to be smoothed chopped and changed until it was so flaccid and inert, it would serve no purpose other than to boost my own profile, which is the only reason why every Peer Reviewed (Cult Member) Scientist on the Planet has done so.

To have it published, and I have a few good links into reputable publications, I would have to change the Hypothesis, Aims and Conclusions to something along the lines of “We have to be careful not to confuse Viral CPE with that of Reduced FBS cell death so that it makes Virology more of a robust Science”. To that I say… shove it so far up your arse it leaves an indelible everlasting taste on your tonsils. No, I would never sell out like that and anyone claiming to be interested in Joe Public’s freedom or is in anyway aligned with the truth AND is getting their work Peer Reviewed, just know that they are lying and are the reason why this fraudulent science is perpetuating.

A Comedy Of Errors

I wouldn’t ever submit this work to a Peer Reviewed publication just the same as I wouldn’t enlist to become a local Councillor or MP. The notion that you can somehow, get involved in the system and slowly battle it from the inside, gives me a nose bleed from how painfully stupid the concept is. I genuinely think that there is only a couple of people doing this within politics, one of those being a candidate for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Count Binface, a man/rubbish bin/amalgamation. However even him as a supposed parody candidate is actually a left leaning liberal activist, so….

However, in the interest of diversity and I do wholesale encourage this, honestly, as part of the Virology Control Studies project I have Open-sourced the results and if you feel that way inclined to submit them to the Authorities to see what you can get pinned up on a cork notice board or read out at a local hustings, then please, go for it, if not just for the shits and giggles.

One such researcher as part of the project did just that; they submitted their own write-up of the results of the first experiment to a Peer Reviewed Journal to see if they could get it published. To be fair to them, they did a warts and all submission where they kept true to the findings that basically Virology is wholesale fraud and needs to be thrown into the dumpster of failed ideas. They submitted it, thinking that it may stand more of a chance to a bit of a fringe journal that specifically dealt with publishing “Anti-Vax”papers i.e they give off some sort of feeling that they are challenging the orthodoxy.

Many will not be surprised to find out, that this “Anti-Vax” publication was actually NOT challenging the orthodoxy or in anyway open to new ideas, but were merely just trying to occupy a niche in said orthodoxy as a commercial angle. You can instantly tell this from the “reviews” that we received back:

So this pant wettingly funny review is in rebuttal to the paper, which they obviously rejected, where instead of talking about the paper submitted, they completely ignored it and said it is “probably in the No Virus Camp” and then proceeded to list all of the things as to why they think viruses exist. LMFAO!

I mean, there is Cult Member indoctrination and then there is this; they seem to be drinking the Kool Aid, pissing it out and then re-ingesting whilst rubbing their nipples in an anticlockwise fashion, after doing a shamanistic ritual in a white cloak by candlelight at dusk.

So now you see what we are up against if you wanted to try and get involved with “the system” to battle it from within. No, it is just not possible to deal with that level of indoctrination. I understand viscerally and wholeheartedly WHY these people have a physical repulsion to this work, why wouldn’t they, it is as Tony Heller put it, there can be no Peers for this work. Why would a tenured professional Virologist who literally puts food on their family’s table publish a paper that would make them go bankrupt? Of course they wouldn’t. It is absurd to suggest any human being would sign away their life like that when it is just one point of call.

Obviously, say in the event that they received 1000 of these papers from a 1000 different sources then these people would have a decision to make, not because of the results or the truth that the paper carries, but in sheer weight of numbers of people that COULD end up affecting their bottom line and hence food that gets put on table. Unwittingly Reviewer number 8, the last in the line-up who waffled on about doing PCR for the entire “Review” ended saying almost precisely that:

I.e they will accept nothing other than an already pre-accepted concept that is used around the world already. I think this is actually the definition of insanity. As an Analogy there is a group of medieval Priests whom have been summoned to a meeting to deliberate over a person who has a new fangled invention called “Email”. Gone are the days of sending messages by attaching them to the leg of a Carrier pigeon and waiting a month to receive the reply, no, you can receive it instantly with this laptop. Reviewer Priest 2 says: “Carrier Pigeons are wonderful companions and once they can’t deliver messages any more we can eat them”. Reviewer Priest 8 says: “Well I will await for the day that my Carrier Pigeon can send me an email, then I think it is safe to adopt this new technology, cooo”.

Only one out of the Eight Reviewer Priests even talked about the experiment or its result at all. Unsurprisingly they talked about a Positive Control. HUGE eye roll. The problem here to the untrained eye is that it comes across as being a somewhat legitimate point to make. However, that is very easy to explain why they are actually talking horseshit and it is a desperate last ditch attempt to clasp onto their beloved “Viruses”.

You see as outlined in this full article here, for starters a Positive Control is not actually needed to falsify THEIR true Negative Control. The experiment is so simple in those terms, once ANY CPE is seen in the control, it renders the Negative Control a failure and the entire Cell Culture protocol should be swept off the table and into a bin. But we went so much further, not only did we Cross Reference every “Viral”Isolation in history showing that the amount of CPE in our experiment was the same or in a lot of cases worse than the identical reagents and cell lines used with claimed “viral” cultures, we not only cross referenced the exact Morphologies of CPE with The American Society for MicroBiology, The ATTC AND The Clinical Laboratory Standards Institute but in BOTH sets of experiments the Independent Accredited MicroBiologists whom carried out the experiments verified these CPE morphologies as well as Countess, a Cell Counter measuring the amount of Cell death in the cultures as an Objective verification. PHEW!

But that is not the reason why these Wankstains want a Positive Control done in the way they want one i.e they want US to put a “virus” in there. Why do they want US to put a “Virus” in there, even though we have cross referenced every Virology lab in history doing the same thing? Simple, They want US to agree that we had a “Virus” to put into it. No matter the outcome (we demonstrated categorically there would be no difference), they will just say , well you can’t believe viruses don’t exist because you used one in your experiments.

This typifies the exact cult like behavior of Virologists and the Peer Reviewed Process. If you want us to listen to your proof that Viruses don’t exist, first you must use a virus. The living embodiment of Contradiction that should be wholesale rebuked by anyone that is intellectually honest and interested in the truth.

It’s ALL Funny Business.

For the rest of this article, I am just going to throw massive amounts of shade at the sheer lunacy of the Peer Reviewed Process (Because there is LOTS of shit to fling). The ammunition is almost never ending, as the more this Cultish treadmill keeps turning the more dumb shit it churns out. So for sake of brevity I will just highlight some important points and well as some funny points.This is the Peer Review Version of a Control Study, Submit a load of crap that looks like it is legitimate on the surface of it and see if it gets through, So Here Goes, in no particular order:

2024 saw a completely made up AI generated paper about Mutant Rat Testicles being published and making it through Peer Review in the huge Science Journal, Frontiers. Most of the words, given it was AI generated don’t actually even make any sense “Iollotte Sserotgomar Cell” “Stenm Cell” and a label pointing to the chest of the rat labelled “Senctollc Stem Cells”. This painfully obvious Splurge of Computer Generated nonsense is made that much more funny when you note that the images look so similar to those found in Virology/Genetics papers, just with a few of the letters scrambled.

The Sokal Affair

It saw an intentional spoof paper be published claiming Quantum Physics was a social construct influenced by leftist politics. I mean despite being claimed as spoof, this was probably one of the most accurate scientific takes out there, yes most of modern science IS a political construct.

Sokal Squared

This saw over 20 papers all pass through the Peer Review process and get published in Scientific Journals. These papers included “The Conceptual Penis As A Social Construct” that claimed that the Social Pressures and influences from Penises were causes Climate Change. Also “Human Reactions to Rape Culture and Queer Performativity at Urban Dog Parks in Portland Oregon” which studied Dogs and their Owners social reactions to watching Dogs have Gay sex.

Bohannon Sting

This was an interesting one pertinent to our project because it really highlights the nonsense of “Bio”Chemistry. John Bohannon completely made up some molecule he claimed he found in Lichen and sent this paper off to over 300 journals, 157 reputable Scientific Journals Publishing this paper, a fair few not even bothering to put it through review rather, just rush it straight through to publication.

A journalist writing for Science Publication did a follow up on the fall out of this, like did any of these publications actually take any flack for publishing completely made up fraudulent science? The answer to that was, no, not a sausage, they can publish dog turds and there are not market forces affecting them, largely because they are just supported by the State/Big Pharma blob that drives their funding rather than any sort of end consumer.

The Rooter Hoax

A Randomized Computer Generated paper that spat our jargon scientific words and sentences was even published in the large journal Springer.

MY Kampf

Christine Clarke submitted a Re-write of a Chapter of Adolf Hitlers Mein Kampf with dressed up feminist jargon that got through TWO stages of Peer Review to be published in a reputable journal.

In Through the Backdoor

Quite literally passing through the Peer Reviewed process via the back door, this “Author” managed to get his paper published in the large and reputable journal Springer on why HeteroSexual Males should be encouraged to use Anal Dildos to reduce Transphobia.

The Return of Sokal.

The original spoof authors who carried off some of the earliest and groundbreaking Control Studies of the Peer Review process returned to get published in the highly acclaimed journal Wiley, a spoof paper… wait for it…claiming that the Peer Review Process is corrupt. Despite the made up authors initials spelling out the word SOKAL III the supposedly ruthless Peer Review process just couldn’t handle this amount of Reverse Psychology.

Notable Mentions

PEER REVIEW PRINTER GOES BRRRRRRRRR

Ok Ok so a few hundred spoof papers got through the bored and inherently biased eyes of a few major publications, so what? Despite being hilarious and leaving these supposed bastions of intellectual grandeur with egg on their faces (Unless you are in the cult, then it is business as usual), this is seemingly a vanishingly small endeavor compared to the sheer volume of “proper papers” out there, right?

Well, not exactly, let me introduce you to this thing called a PAPER MILL. There are huge companies set up working with accredited and already peer Reviewed scientists running large scale scams where they essential sell their credentials to get unknown “scientists” published. For a fee either direct to these industry plants they will co/author a paper, go to journals whom they have already published countless times with, they are golf buddies with the senior editor, weyhey, they got the paper published.

This is noted in the video below on a channel called Pete Judo who does an amazing job of researching and presenting Scientific fraud on his channel. He shows this Norwegian “Scientist” Filippo Berto whom averages a paper publication every 2-3 days. I.e this impossible feat shows that he is part of a paper mill selling his credentials to be published.

So some Norwegian dude is a scam artist, again big whoop. Well hold on a second, in fact the upper bounds of estimates of how many papers being published originate from Paper Mills is an absolute jaw dropping 24%!!! Yes 1 in 4 Peer Reviewed and published papers has been bought/bribed/forged/schmoozed into existence.

RETRACTION WATCH

When 1/4 of all Peer Reviewed Papers eventually get linked back to these Paper Mills or the ever increasing list of Authors are found to be outright frauds, seemingly instead of being put in prison, they just have to go through the Academic equivalent of Rotten Vegetable throwing, the retraction, where in typical teacher format, they will write in big Red Letters across their paper RETRACTED… oooh what a deterrent. Fortunately there is a website documenting all of these literary scoldings called Retraction Watch.

The sheer volume of Scientific Fraud out there, this website is updated daily with new news of rank cheating in the world of Science. It contains articles in their own right and follows the stories of some of the notable shysters shenanigans:

(All of the pictures in this article link to the relevant articles/papers)

It has a a Leaderboard boasting the biggest frauds and the number of publications they have had retracted, this may actually end up turning into a competition.

It even has a section for outing previous Nobel Prize Winners as frauds and the number of papers they have had retracted. Slightly dismayed by the fact that Kary Mullis features nowhere on here….. yet. Hopefully by the time we are done with him, he will be pushing for that number one spot.

There are thousands of instances of frauds coming out of the wood work by the day, it would be too long and arduous to document them all, so I would just point you to the Retraction Watch website to stay abreast, potentially more useful than reading a broadsheet with your morning coffee?

Nevertheless I will briefly cover with the help of Pete Judo’s wonderful coverage a couple of notable examples:

The first focuses on the top of the leaderboard on Retraction Watch, Joachim Bolt. This scientific fraudster wholesale fabricated all of his data relating to some claimed blood coagulating molecule that ended up being used post surgery after his bogus work, that ended up being pretty harmful. He got found out interestingly because someone noted that in his studies he claimed that all of the patients in his studies had perfect blood pH after surgery, which according to his peers (SIC*) is impossible i.e all blood after major trauma is more acid (Or more positively charged hydrogen Ions):

The second of these follows the cheat Jan Hendrik Shon who almost bagged himself a Nobel Prize with his wholesale made up work with Transistors. He blagged his way to the top and instead of doing actual experiments he was forging the data and unfortunately for him, made it a bit too perfect.

Another Bik In The Wall

Now onto something within the same branch of “Science” as us here at the Virology Control Studies Project. A researcher at the University of Stanford because interested in plagiarism after doing a reverse search on the internet for some of her work, when she hit across numerous other scientists copying and not referencing her, she started on a journey of outing what do be many eminent “scientists” up to an including Nobel prize winner Greg Semenza.

Her major breakthrough to opening up a whole goldmine of Scientific Fraud was when she started analyzing a staple “Test” used by Virologists and Geneticists, the Western Blot. In Gel Electrophoresis, something we have discussed numerous times on this channel as it is the “confirmatory” test for a PCR. It measures charge, by literally putting battery electrodes across a gel and then a dye in the sample. When the charged particles in the sample move toward the electrode they band out at different intervals suggesting “weight”. This “Test” to my mind is no more informative than tea leaf reading, making wild interpretations on the patterns that emerge after swirling the cup in a consistent counter clockwise motion.

It is no wonder then that when Elisabeth started to notice something strange that published scientists seemed to be doing something quite frequently, which was literally copy and pasting images of these bands from either their own experiments or from completely different ones altogether to pass them off as their own.

It’s not some drop in the ocean, when this single person analyzed papers containing these Western Blot images from ONE publication, PLOS, a Biological Peer Reviewed Journal she found nearly 5000 papers with clear and obvious image and data fraud.

In this last one, a Biological publication that was Peer Reviewed and published in the leading Biological journal, Nature, literally used an advert photo from a Cell Bank presumably as their negative control. I mean you have to applaud them for the outright hubris to use as stock image in a publication in the most highly sought after journal on plant earth and not get caught. Well seemingly there are many many more out there, as this one lady has a body count higher than a Rear Gunner on a B52 at the beaches of Normandy, just imagine if there were 1000 of this type of lady out there committed to undoing the fraud of Science/Peer Review.

Here is an interview with Elisabeth Bik on her findings. Check it out.

MIND YOUR Ps AND Qs

So far we have focused on clear and obvious fraud, from selling credentials and bribing editors to copy and pasting images to completely making up data sets. These *should* be in a fair system an open and shut case, straight to prison, the same for tax and financial fraud, so why not for scientific fraud as these publications are effectively printing money for these fraudsters, and in a lot of cases, especially within medical science, drugs and medical practices are being built off of the back of this fraud.

But believe it or not, this is just scratching the surface of the problem with the Peer Review process. This is an Academic endeavor, really any true Scientists should rebuke the institutionalized rot of Academia and the Peer Review/Journal Life, cut all ties and start again. This is because of a culture that is widely known and reported in this arena called : “PUBLISH OR PERISH”. It is a pretty insidious call to action, and when these fraudsters are eventually outed, it is a near 100% who cite this “Pressure” as a reason for their nefarious actions. If you don’t “find” the data you need, you don’t get published, you don’t get recognition, you don’t get funding, you don’t eat. Really the entire system is set up to encourage data manipulation and fraud, which is precisely why it is so prevalent.

Let’s have a look at just how deep this rot goes, because really we have only been looking at the superficial problem, when those power hungry Academics are not content with just “not perishing” but indeed faking it all the way to the top, they completely over step the mark and get caught for continually having to fake perfect results.

But what about the vast majority that haven’t been caught yet? What about your run of the mill academic doing science research in general? There are 6 methods of shall we call it data “manipulation/massaging/statistical analysis” which are not strictly considered fraud, largely because EVERY establishment, certainly every peer reviewed scientist on the face of the Earth does them. But really when you do fully deep the implications of these *ah hem* techniques, they should lead anyone intellectually honest enough to see modern Science through the lens that I do, which it is total and utter garbage state propaganda, top to bottom.

To add to this, these “techniques” are ONTOP of the fact that we are assuming the “Tests/Data Collection” is legitimate in the first place. I.e They are assuming we believe that say the PCR test works and is a perfect test, and these are just statistical methods to mold the results to your wish. Clearly this is NOT my thought and once again just adds to my burning hatred for what “Science/Soyence” is today.

P HACKING

1. Stopping Rules/Data Peeking

Scientists instead of collecting all the data they can then running stats on it will tentatively collect data in small bits running stats in small chinks until they have achieved a statistically significant result, the moment they have that one data set, they stop collecting altogether to not upset their trend lines.

2. Deleting Outliers

Taking the data sets that do not fit the trend line of statistical significance and just deleting it. This fraud is usually dressed up in all sorts of excuses as to why particular data sets might not be included, or more likely just obscured by claiming certain type of framing or focus is needed etc.

3. Variable Manipulation

You set out with one hypothesis in mind but are drawing a blank, you notice a trend in something unrelated to the original hypothesis and so just change your hypothesis. This to me is a pretty low grade one, as I think that keeping an open mind and finding new areas of research is good. You just have to declare the losses otherwise you are just guilty of deleting a lot of outliers.

4. Excessive Hypothesis Testing

Start with a very large umbrella Hypothesis that tests a huge number of data sets, choose a smaller data set that shows significance. This is like a combination of deleting outliers and variable manipulation but it fleshes out how the mind set of framing works and it shows the intent behind this type of manipulation.

5. Excessive Model Fitting

You have completely random data, but you draw lines of best fit that try and persuade some sort of trend or use mathematical tricks to smooth and align data into something more palatable. I mean this is the meat and gravy of Scientific Fraud that is so prevalent and deep rooted that it is now just accepted as normal. Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics is a proverb for a reason. Everyone whom is a grown adult will tell you instinctively that statistics are not to be trusted, yet the entire premise of the Scientific Peer Review model is predicated on it.

6. Selective Reporting of Results

This is deleting outliers but on the Macro Scale. Cherry Picking whole experiments and deleting the ones that didn’t work out. Once again it is bread and butter scientific fraud that has been normalized to just be thought of as “Marketing” your science, putting a neat bow around your results to present it in its best light… it is seen as more of a commercial make-up, ply on the foundation, lippy and mascara and you’ll only realized you pulled a pig when you wake up next to her in the morning.

CONCLUSION

I will leave you with this, a Published Peer Reviewed paper about how shit the Publishing and Peer Review process is and it isn’t a parody sting.

In it they quote Robbie Fox, editor of the world wide and highly respected Scientific journal The Lancet. He likened the Peer Review process to standing at the top of a flight of stairs, throwing a bunch of papers down them and publishing the ones that reached the bottom.

In a devastating conclusion from another paper (Effects of Editorial Peer Review) it says in no uncertain terms “ The practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects rather than of facts”

So when people on Twitter tell me they won’t even discuss the findings of any experimental science I put out unless it is Peer Reviewed, despite the work being done by independent accredited MicroBiology labs and the method meticulously documented and even filmed. That is all you need to know, that they are part of a cult whose appeal to authority includes more than a quarter of papers that come from Chinese Paper Mills, likely written by AI, most definitely bribed to publish.

The papers that aren’t part of a paper mill could highly likely include complete fraud, like wholesale fabrication of data or copy and pasting images or grossly misrepresenting data sets. That is in my opinion highly likely. Also in my opinion but I am extremely confident about this; the paper that you are being presented to as “Science” if it comes from a Peer Reviewed Publication will certainly, guaranteed, 100% have the type of fraud that is considered “acceptable” such as P Hacking.

This type of data manipulation that is regarded as “Statistics” IS modern science in a nutshell. When you can see that the entirety of Virological Isolation, Every single one ever done since 1954 has never actually logged the method for the Negative Control, the entire thing is done on a “Trust Me Bro” basis. When we actually just conducted a legitimate control for them, we showed that the complete industrial science of Virology was willfully lying.

Don’t forget that this is ALL predicted on the assumption that the things there are studying are real, tangible things and the tests that they are testing them with work in the way that they say and all of the inferences of non direct tests are exactly as their story goes. Which, well, if you believe that, you probably also think that the Penis is a conceptual construct that can cause Climate Change.

When it comes down to it, I believe that YOU, the reader, are my Peers. I believe that your logic and your understanding are paramount to the ultimate success of the Science that we are presenting here at the Virology Controls Studies Project. That is why I write the results and release them in an “Unconventional” manner, but that is why I go above and beyond to let you have ALL the data, to let you inside the laboratories and SEE the experiments happening, so you can come to your own conclusions. If they so happen to coincide with the conclusions I have reached, that to me has passed a Peer Review process.

It is then incumbent on you, the Peers, to “Publish” your findings. Whatever your take, the way this succeeds is to take the Opensource data, present it in a way that you deem necessary and publish it however you feel will have the most impact, on social media, on a website/blog, print it out and hand it out at a Christening, the beauty is, once you leave the paradigms of the cult, the world is your oyster. Enjoy.