Peer Review as Secular Imprimatur
Part 1: The inculcation of “scientific” authority & the emerging technocratic NWO
Imprimatur (Lat., ‘let it be printed’): The permission granted by the Roman Catholic Church for the approved publication of certain religious works.
I. Peer Review’s Imprimatur: somehow essential to scientific “truth”?
Was Darwin’s work “peer reviewed”? No.
Were the 300 or so papers by which Einstein revolutionized modern physics “peer reviewed”? Nope.
How about the relatively recent Watson and Crick papers on the structure of DNA that revolutionized modern biology? Nope. Not “peer reviewed.”
And yet—to the extent that they understand them—large portions of the population assent to these and other scientific theories sans Peer Review.
But I thought that we ought to be skeptical of—if not outright dismissive if not hostile to—theories lacking the imprimatur of Peer Review? And that conversely, with this imprimatur we are to assent to a scientific theory?
Isn’t Peer Review a sign of scientific “truth”?
Given the public “discussion” during the past 3 years, one could be forgiven for thinking so.
But thinking so incorporates a profound misunderstanding about the nature of science.
It also renders a person vulnerable to manipulation about what they believe to be true or false; and even obedient to a dangerous if not genocidal groupthink.
Moreover, it would mean having to jettison almost all currently-received and established science.
II. Peer Review only dates back to the early 1970s
Until recently, and spanning back to the earliest examples of what we would call “modern science,” the scientific community was a relatively small one, made up of learned people who regularly communicated with one another both publicly and privately; and this provided a kind of ongoing, ad hoc informal approval for any given study or paper.
As the scientific community grew—and the research, studies and papers only understandable to an evermore-specialized and smaller subset of scientists—this informal process became increasingly untenable.
And so in the early 1970s, the process that we currently know emerged: whereby input from “knowledgeable peers” is used to “referee” a given paper to decide whether it ought to be published. (Imprimatur: “let it be printed.”)
One the one hand, this newly-formalized Peer Review process is no different—and no less “chummy”—than it was prior to the 1970s. Conflicts of interest existed then as now. As did errors if not outright fraud; as well as professional blindness—known as the Semmelweis Effect—to anything that doesn’t fit into the orthodox paradigm. Examples throughout history are many and well known.
But here’s the difference: Peer Review didn’t solve these problems; rather it normalized, institutionalized and extended them to virtually the entire population.
And worse: now with the added dimension that Peer Review was transformed into something culturally symbolic and even talismanic. Peer Review—analogous to any seal of approval, such as the Underwriter’s lLaboratory stamp—became a kind of symbol laden with cultural power. And since the 1970s, the population has become increasingly aware of this symbol and the concept it points to: that Peer Review is a kind of perceived authority over what is—and what is not—scientifically “true” and valid.
And that perceived authority, in turn, leverages virtue-signaling and groupthink dynamics on a global scale; and it does so in a world inhabited by people who—driven in part by the anxiety of being marginalized and isolated; or even ostracized and excommunicated—desperately want to be seen as fitting in to the group and be part of something greater than themselves.
In other words, Peer Review has the power to blind and deceive and control the minds and actions of the entire population. And as we’ve seen during the last 3 years, this power is nothing less than breathtaking.
So how does Peer Review actually achieve this? And why does the population assent to it’s authority?
But before we get to that, however: is Peer Review a valid sign of scientific “truth” in the first place?
III. Peer Review’s flaws are widely-acknowledged and dangerous to the population
Even from the very beginning of Peer Review, the entire concept and process came under severe criticism, and not only from outsiders but from scientists within the scientific and medical community itself.
For example, Dr. Richard Smith CBE argued here and here as Chief Editor in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine:
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
“Peer review” is basically a bunch of people getting to say what is—and what is not—a valid research study in a particular field. And, presumably it has some gate-keeping value. For whom? For the expositors of a particular point of view in a particular sub-field and at a particular institution or journal.
However, it is no guarantee whatsoever of scientific “truth.”
The most we can conclude about a paper/study which has been favorably “peer reviewed” is that it conforms to the prevailing groupthink of that particular journal or institution. And even that we cannot be sure of.
Peer Review otherwise and by itself bestows no special status regarding truth value; and we should be just as skeptical about a “peer-reviewed” paper/study as any other.
Now, one might say: “well, hold on…it’s more likely to be valid/true/trustworthy than otherwise, no?”
Really? Why? Certainly not necessarily so.
Indeed, one might just as well argue conversely: that “peer review” is more likely to guarantee the creation, promotion and enforcement of a tightly-approved point of view, irrespective of whether it’s true or false. This is not only due to the nature of the process; but because the people who end up in those “review” positions are likely to be strongly-supportive of the prevailing groupthink. Otherwise they would not be in those positions.
And therein lies yet another problem: the “peer review” imprimatur —as a creator and enforcer of orthodoxy—confers a kind of false halo upon a given paper/study, and therefore encourages and even rewards a lack of skepticism in the public. Especially among the media; and even more especially among the consumers of that media.
Conversely, if a study/paper is “pre-print” or not (or not yet) “peer reviewed,” it is automatically and erroneously considered tainted, or somehow “less meaningful” or “less important/noteworthy,” or “fringy,” or even vaguely tinged with a whiff of the fraudulent.
Which is absurdly prejudicial. It is also logically invalid: A paper or study may be scientifically valid, or not: but that fact is irrespective of their status wrt "peer review."
It is also both ironic and dangerous: 1. Outright Fraud, 2. Error and 3. Ideological Blindness have always been a part of peer-review from the very start.
Let’s take those one by one.
1. SCIENCE™©’s Peer Review has always been rife with outright Fraud
[Nota bene: here and elsewhere, I am making a distinction between actual science — and SCIENCE™©: an ideology at the toxic nexus of media, military agencies, research institutions, international agencies, corporations, universities, and popular understanding.]
Fraud has been a major and continual concern for at least as long as Peer Review has been in existence. And it seems to be getting worse.
The recent discovery of the fabrication of evidence in “scores” of Alzheimer’s papers is a well-known if not notorious example.
And Nobel Prize Winner & Johns Hopkins Professor Gregg Semenza has some serious splainin’ to do: seven of his studies were based on fake evidence and have been retracted. In one study, the authors did not have the evidence they claimed to have; so they simply photoshopped that evidence into existence.
This fraud seems to occur with increasing regularity, and even at the highest echelons of scientific research. You can explore the seemingly endless examples here.
And this is no “merely academic” issue.
The problem of “Peer-Reviewed” fraud has virtual incalculable ramifications, in part because no one really knows exactly how large the problem really is; only that the more we look the more fabrication we find.
And even when these fabrications are found—and retracted—the fabricating authors often face no consequences; indeed, they often resubmit their papers with minor or even cosmetic changes.1
Still worse, these same studies are often still included in systematic meta-reviews, which in turn inform clinical practice, with potentially lethal and often harmful results.2
In other words, “Peer-Reviewed” fraud has real-world, clinical and human consequences.
2. SCIENCE™©’s Peer Review has always been rife with Error
Retractions are common. For example, among many thousands every year, there’s this one from Nature.
How many errors are not caught? And how many are foisted upon the docile, trusting population as SCIENCE™©? With harmful if not fatal effects?
Even “Peer-Reviewed” unintentional errors have real-world, clinical and human consequences.
3. SCIENCE™©’s Peer Review encourages, extends and enforces Professional Blindness
This has often been called the Semmelweis effect: that is, the tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs, or paradigms.
Now, of course, “professional blindness” is exceedingly difficult to measure. We can witness it, however, in spades historically. That is, retrospectively.
Indeed, I would argue that the history of approved “science” getting science wrong—defending outdated science and excluding actual science—is practically synonymous with the history of science. Thomas S. Kuhn’s celebrated and profound Structure of Scientific Revolution is highly insightful on this dynamic.
Dr. Joseph Lister in the 19th century is a classic example of professional blindness protecting erroneous scientific beliefs and excluding true ones.
Dr. Lister observed (the first step in any actual science) that surgeons who went from the morgue to the birthing rooms often coincided with massive infections in the mothers giving birth, who sadly often died at a high rate. He wondered if perhaps there was a connection (the second step in actual science: to postulate causation); and suggested that everyone wash their hands thoroughly before any procedure or surgery
(A prudent and inexpensive step, no? I mean it’s not like he was asking the entire world’s population to inject an untested/untrialed substance now, was he?)
However, because he had dared to question the prevailing groupthink—the “settled science” in the 19th century—his professional reputation was damaged; he was ridiculed, ejected from professional societies, and so on (sound familiar? By the way, what happened to the 3rd step of actual science: testing and experimentation? They were too busy dismissing his observations and inferences.)
And, of course, Dr. Lister was ultimately proven right; and the 19th “settled science” was dead wrong, and with horrific and fatal consequences in the meantime.
How often is this pattern repeated in history? One could write a history of the ignorance of the “scientific consensus” prevailing in any given period; where actual science was advanced by those who did not conform to that consensus, and had to fight it tooth and nail against it.
Now imagine if Peer Review was in force in Dr. Lister’s time?
What if there existed in Dr. Lister’s time a process and cultural symbol that would effectively institutionalize, impose and extend the erroneous theories that prevailed at the time—that allowed surgeons to go from the morgue to the birth room without washing their hands—and marginalize and occlude Dr. Lister’s theories about germs, infections, and disinfecting/washing?
[Nota Bene: the answer I have gotten to this question from scientists is a stunning bit of absurdly unscientific hubris: that “this sort of thing wouldn’t happen now because we’re more sophisticated; and we simply know more now than we did back then.”]
And what if the erroneous and harmful theories were effectively extended to the entire global population? Who in turn has been entrained to perceive this symbol as having authority? Even authority to compel compliance?
And what if this went on for a half century? Or more?
And isn’t this precisely what we see happening at this point in our history?
This is exactly how Peer Review functions: it institutionalizes, imposes and extends professional blindness: often excluding valid and protecting erroneous science.
Dr. Paul Christian Lauterbur, the American chemist who won a Nobel Prize in 2003 for his work that made the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) possible, said of his work’s endless rejection, and of his initial rejection from Nature:
“You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature."
In short, the cultural power of Peer Review extends these errors, fraud and professional blindness to the entire global population; and compels obedience to its authority. And with consequences that are harmful if not fatal and even catastrophic.
But how does it do so exactly?
IV. Peer Review’s Imprimatur effectuates mind control in broad swathes of the population
…especially among the media; and even more especially among the consumers of that media.
And via at least Three Mutually-Reinforcing Ways:
1. Peer Review entrains the population with the illusion of SCIENTIFIC®™ “consensus.”
And, moreover, invests that notion with a perceived authority. And—what’s worse—projects that power and authority to the population at large.
And yet, the reality is:
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with consensus. A paper or study may be “true” or valid, or not: but that fact is irrespective of how many people say they believe it or affirm it. Science, and truth in general, is not a democracy. It has nothing whatsoever to do with numbers.
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with authority. Indeed, traditionally, authority—especially to compel—is inimical to the entire spirit and purpose and nature of science. Which is the disinterested accumulation of evidence with respect to a theory.
Science has especially nothing whatsoever to do with coercion and subverting “informed consent.” That is, except for very dark periods in history during which war crimes and crimes against humanity were committed. Josef Mengele’s experiments on unwilling victims during the Third Reich are a prime example. But we also see it increasingly in the last fifty and especially in the past three years during the Covid-“vaccine” Pys-Op. Which was a war crime. And a crime against humanity.
2. SCIENCE™©’S Peer Review was cast as the sole arbiter of what is scientifically true and false
The “peer review” imprimatur —as a creator and enforcer of “orthodoxy,” whether valid or not—confers a false halo upon a given paper/study.
Halo effect: that any given claim—about, say, mRNA "vaccines”—must necessarily be “true” if it's supported by something called "Peer Review"
And in addition to the Halo Effect at work, we can also see its negative twin, the Horn Effect.
Horn Effect: That, conversely, if a claim—say a criticism of the mRNA "vaccines"—isn't peer reviewed, it must necessarily be questionable, subjective, fringy, or flat-out fraudulent, et cetera.
First, once again, both claims are invalid and absurd.
One can’t even qualify the above claims with “more likely” to render them coherent.
Here is a validly logical statement of the case: A paper or study or claim may be “true” or valid, or not: but that fact is irrespective of its status wrt "peer review." Peer Review confers no special status as to its validity or “truth.” In other words, we should be skeptical of all scientific claims, whatever their status wrt Peer Review.
Second this dynamic effectively marginalizes—and in most cases silences—voices that do not conform to the Peer Review monopoly. And if history is a reliable guide, often those marginalized voices were revealed to be right; and usually but not always with considerable hindsight.
Third, this dynamic creates, reinforces and rewards a lack of skepticism about SCIENTIFIC™© claims in the minds of the population. Which leaves the population dangerously susceptible to manipulation; and abuse via their coerced obedience.
3. Peer Review incorporates and deploys the totalizing ambitions of SCIENCE™© to be the ultimate authority and source of ALL truth.
If “peer review” was not really a part of the scientific community until the 1970s, it had become the de facto standard, if not something of an obsession, within the scientific community by the 21st century.
What else can we say about this time period? Besides that we watched advertisements for Mr. Potato head? And that Snopes emerged—a kind of “poor man’s” Peer Review—as a notoriously untrustworthy arbiter of what is true or false in the media?
We saw the rise of deep confusion about the nature and role of science.
Whereby science morphed from actual science: the disinterested accumulation of evidence in light of theories proposed to explain observable phenomena…
….into SCIENCE™©: the ultimate authority and source of all truth. Whereby all questions, of whatever nature, are properly “answered” by the paragon of knowledge, SCIENCE™©.
Not surprisingly, this same period of time was attended—not coincidentally—by the emergence of deeply-entrenched pseudoscience (global warming “science” is a prime example.)
Three Dogmas of SCIENCE™©
Here are three examples of the sort of incoherent dogmas by which SCIENCE™© arrogates authority to itself—even if implicitly—over all truth, and with respect to all reality:
First dogma: That: “all real, objective truth is known via—or verified by—the experimental method.”
This is the Error of Verificationism.
It violates the first principle of reason; and is a self-refuting contradiction: for that proposition—which is expected to be taken as true—cannot itself be verified via the experimental method. So even on its own terms why should anyone assent to it? It is thereby necessarily false. And pure sophistry.
It’s also an unwitting, if feeble, attempt at “doing” philosophy, even as it’s simultaneously a repudiation of it. Which is a self-refuting contradiction at yet another level.
Second dogma: That “science discovers real, objective truth.”
This is also self-refuting—and thereby necessarily false; however, here I want to focus on a secondary issue with respect to this claim: it is a basic confusion about the nature, limits and purpose of science.
Science does not and cannot even in principle “discover real, objective truth”; it is simply not what science “does”: which is to focus entirely on an aspect of matter, whether that is matter under the aspect of motion (physics); or under the aspect of composition (chemistry); or under the aspect of living organisms (biology) - that is to say, its purview being very partial aspects of material reality. And decidedly not “reality” itself.
Scientific theories—because they are focused on the material—are almost always evolving systems of transient value. They “work” for some time until they don’t. Very few if any scientific discoveries or theories last more than a century, if even decades. And where science can point to an unchanging “scientific fact”—say, the rate of acceleration of an apple towards the ground, or the boiling point of water—this fact is always provisional and contingent upon local and given conditions that govern material reality.
But SCIENCE™© endeavors to escape the circumscribed limits of actual science by deploying an unsound—even if implicit—syllogistic logic: 1. All that is real is material/quantifiable. 3. Science deals with the material/quantifiable. Therefore, 3. SCIENCE™© deals with all of reality. Besides being logically unsound (the major premise is false), this results in a deeply problematic reductionism: reducing reality itself to strictly material and efficient causes. And stripping out formal and final causes. More on this in the future.
Third dogma: That: “outside of science, any so-called “truth” is subjective pablum.”
This claim evidences a basic confusion about the nature of truth.
It is also a self-refuting contradiction; for it is a philosophical proposition, not a scientific one. So even on its own terms, why should we trust it to be true? It is also thereby necessarily false. And pure sophistry.
Moreover, as a “philosophical” proposition it claims to be a real and objective statement of the case. Which is also a self-refuting contradiction at another level.
And just by way of contrast:
Nevertheless, the above statements also contains an implicit if unintended admission: it is philosophy that explores and discovers truth.
Philosophy’s Law of Non-Contradiction, for example—first fully articulated by Aristotle—-applies everywhere, to everything, and at all times, with no exception whatsoever; it is as true now as it was 2,500 or even 10,000 years ago, and will be so in trillions of years hence; and in any possible universe. Which is why it’s a necessary and absolute truth. Even when you try to refute it, you merely affirm it.
In short, SCIENCE™© has—with breathtaking hubris—erroneously arrogated for itself the authority and source of all truth about virtually all of reality.
And Peer Review’s plays a pivotal role in the instillation of that authority—and in compelling obedience to it—in the minds of the population.
And with catastrophic results in nearly every area of life; and especially regarding the health and and safety of the population.
V. Segue to Part II:
All of which explains why Peer Review is so important to the promoters of the psy-op pandemic/mRNA “vaccines.”
But the New World Order technocratic fascists needed something more than Peer Review to compel nearly the entire population into self-genocide.
They needed a binding, meta-belief system. One that is global.
And if Peer Review provides an secular imprimatur for a kind of ersatz, planetary religion—SCIENTISM is that religion.
Which brings us to Part II.
See Dr. Richard Smith CBE, Chief Editor in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. “Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals” J R Soc Med. 2006 Apr; 99(4): 178–182. And “The trouble with medical journals” J R Soc Med. 2006 Mar; 99(3): 115–119.
Ibid.