经典句子： 

there is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process

有很多垃圾通过同行评审过程。

scientists are prone to being confected to their pet theories and opinions，especially if they've been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained status and accolades as a result i mean who would want to put that at risk after all scientists just like lay people have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos

科学家很容易被他们所钟爱的理论和观点所迷惑，尤其是当他们获得了明显的奖励或公开获得的地位和荣誉时 因此，我的意思是，在所有科学家都像外行人一样拥有易受影响的情绪体并且常常相当自负的情况下，谁愿意将自己的名声其置于危险之中，

anyone who is an expert in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out 

任何一个领域的专家都会成为任何教条的支持者 对学术权力动态的仔细研究证明了这一点

we portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science 

our most objective truth-teller。but we know that the system of peer review is biased， unjust，

unaccountable， incomplete， easily fixed，often insulting， usually ignorant，occasionally foolish 

and frequently wrong.

peer review as a quasi-sacred process that somehow supposedly 

transcends the foibles and follies of human nature 

has long since unconsciously taken on sacred ritual status

同行评审对公众来说是一个准神圣的过程，是科学成为最客观评判。但是同行评审制度是有偏见的，不公正，不负责任，不完整，容易修复，经常侮辱，通常无知，

有时愚蠢，经常错误的。

同行评审被作为 一个准神圣的过程，不知何故被认为超越了人性的弱点和愚蠢，

同行评审早已在不知不觉中获得了神圣的仪式地位。

视频文件：

Is Science Broken? The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine)

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=1188246

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=1188244

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=1188242

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=1188243

Is_Science_Broken_The_Failure_of_Peer_Review_Especially_M2ZvEEvTuP8.part1.rar

Is_Science_Broken_The_Failure_of_Peer_Review_Especially_M2ZvEEvTuP8.part2.rar

Is_Science_Broken_The_Failure_of_Peer_Review_Especially_M2ZvEEvTuP8.part3.rar

Is_Science_Broken_The_Failure_of_Peer_Review_Especially_M2ZvEEvTuP8.part4.rar

------

The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine) with Brendan D. Murphy

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=1188236

文本：

https://blog.sciencenet.cn/home.php?mod=attachment&id=1188235

The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine) with Brendan D. Murph].txt

The_Failure_of_Peer_Review_Especially_in_Medicine_with_StGaabirH4s.mp4

出处：

====================

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2ZvEEvTuP8

Is Science Broken? The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StGaabirH4s

The Failure of Peer Review (Especially in Medicine) with Brendan D. Murphy

------------------------------

英汉对照（机器翻译）

For many people the idea of peer review occupies special even sacred territory in the world of science

对许多人来说，同行评审的理念在科学界占据着特殊甚至神圣的领域，

however investigation of suppressed innovations,inventions, effective medical treatments, non-toxic cures and so on rapidly reveals that the peer review system is arguably better one thing

然而，对被抑制的创新,发明、有效的医疗方法、无毒疗法等的调查迅速表明，同行评审制度可以说是比上面更好的一件事

above all others, censorship, whether this is censorship of contrarian viewpoints or innovations that render favored dogmas or products or services obsolete

所有其他审查制度，无论是对逆向观点的审查，还是对使受青睐的教条、产品或服务过时的创新的审查，

say, economic threats depends on the circumstances

经济威胁取决于具体情况，

regardless the problem is now recognized by many critics as endemic

无论这个问题现在被许多批评家认为是普遍存在的，

and many scientists have had to learn this the hard way the defects in the peer review system have been the subject of a profusion of editorials and studies in the literature over recent years

许多科学家不得不以惨痛的方式认识到这一点 近年来，同行评审制度的缺陷一直是大量社论和文献研究的主题，

clearly there is a problem and denial won't solve it as dr david kaplan professor of pathology at the case western reserve university in cleveland tells us

正如凯斯西储大学病理学教授戴维·卡普兰博士博士所言，显然存在问题，否认并不能解决问题。克利夫兰告诉我们，

peer review is known to engender bias incompetence excessive expense ineffectiveness and corruption a surfeit of publications has documented the deficiencies of this system

同行评审会产生偏见、无能、费用过高、效率低下和腐败，大量出版物记录了该系统的缺陷，

australian physicist brian martin elaborates on this theme in his excellent articlestrategies for dissenting scientists he says

澳大利亚物理学家布莱恩·马丁在他的优秀文章中详细阐述了这一主题，针对持不同意见的科学家的策略，他说

certain sorts of innovation are welcome in science when they fall within established frameworks and do not threaten vested interests

某些类型的创新是当它们落在既定框架内并且不威胁既得利益时，科学就会受到欢迎，

but aside from this sort of routine

但除了这种例行公事的

innovation science has many similarities to systems of dogma dissenters are not welcome they are ignored, rejected

创新之外，科学与教条系统有许多相似之处，持不同政见者不受欢迎，他们被忽视，被拒绝

and sometimes attacked. electric universe researcher walt thornhill stated plainly in my interview with him that the peer review system amounts to censorship

，有时甚至受到攻击，电力宇宙研究员沃尔特·索恩希尔在 我对他的采访中说，同行评审制度相当于审查制度，

fellow independent scientist gary novak is also scathing stating that peer review is a form of censorship which is tyranny over the mind. censorship does not purify it corrupts

独立科学家加里·诺瓦克（Gary Novak）也严厉指出，同行评审是审查制度的一种形式，它是对思想审查的暴政，它不会净化它，它会腐败，

there is a lot of junk science and trash that goes through the peer review process he is absolutely correct on this last point

有很多垃圾科学和垃圾通过同行评审过程。他在最后一点上是绝对正确的，

 as we will see shortly brian martin asks what do scientists have to gain by spending time helping an outsider most likely the alleged discovery will turn out to be pointless or wrong from the standard point of view

因为我们很快就会看到布莱恩·马丁问道，科学家们通过花时间帮助局外人必须获得什么， 根据标准观点很可能所谓的发现将被证明是毫无意义或错误的

if the outsider has made a genuine discovery that means the outsider would win rewards at the expense of those already in the field who have invested years of effort in the conventional ideas

如果局外人做出了真正的发现，这意味着局外人将以牺牲那些已经在该领域投入多年努力的传统观念为代价来赢得回报，

this means that the influential and powerful on the inside of the old boys club can and frequently do become gatekeepers or a form of threshold guardian who will only yield to the correct affirmatory magic words that validate and refi the entrenched theories or sacred products

这意味着该领域内部有影响力和强大的人 老男孩俱乐部可以而且经常成为看门人或某种形式的门槛守护者，他们只会屈服于正确的肯定性魔法词，以验证和重新验证根深蒂固的理论或神圣产品，

otherwise as gandalf tells the fire demon you shall not pas，snot pass

否则就像甘道夫告诉火恶魔一样，你不能通过，不能

incidentally innovators and dissidents are often cast as demons or demonized by establishment guardians who are threatened by novelty 

偶然通过创新者 持不同政见者经常被视为恶魔或被当权派守护者妖魔化，他们受到新奇事物的威胁，

contrary to what the bland archetype suggests scientists are prone to being confected to their pet theories and opinions，especially if they've been visibly rewarded or publicly obtained status and accolades as a result i mean who would want to put that at risk after all scientists just like lay people have susceptible emotional bodies and often fairly hefty egos

这与平淡的原型所暗示的相反，科学家很容易被他们所钟爱的理论和观点所迷惑，尤其是当他们获得了明显的奖励或公开获得的地位和荣誉时 因此，我的意思是，在所有科学家都像外行人一样拥有易受影响的情绪体并且常常相当自负的情况下，谁愿意将其置于危险之中，

partially due to their expertise and academic titles， qualifications， theories， etc， etc， dr malcolm kendrick comments in doctrine data

部分原因是他们的专业知识和学术头衔、资格理论等等等马尔科姆·肯德里克博士在学说数据中评论说

that by definition anyone who is an expert in an area of medicine will be a supporter of whatever dogma holds sway close study of power dynamics in medicine bears this out 

定义 任何一个医学领域的专家都会成为任何教条的支持者 对医学权力动态的仔细研究证明了这一点，

and we should never forget the golden rule whoever has the gold makes the rules

我们永远不应该忘记黄金法则 无论谁拥有黄金，谁就制定规则

corporations increasingly dominate oversight and funding of so-called scientific research

公司越来越多地主导监督和 所谓科学研究的资助

consider the following words from the lancet's editor richard horton

考虑一下《柳叶刀》编辑理查德·霍顿的以下言论，

he says the mistake of course is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability not the validity of a new finding 

他说，错误当然在于认为同行评审只不过是发现我们所描绘的新发现的可接受性而不是有效性的粗略手段

we portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth-teller

同行评审对公众来说是一个准神圣的过程，有助于使科学成为我们最客观的真相讲述者，

but we know that the system of peer review is biased unjust，unaccountable incomplete easily fixed，often insulting usually ignorant

但我们知道，同行评审制度是有偏见的，不公正，不负责任，不完整，容易修复，经常侮辱，通常无知，

occasionally foolish and frequently wrong. peer review as a quasi-sacred process that somehow supposedly transcends the foibles and follies of human nature has long since unconsciously taken on sacred ritual status

有时愚蠢，经常错误的同行评审 一个准神圣的过程，不知何故超越了人性的弱点和愚蠢，早已在不知不觉中获得了神圣的仪式地位。

has the paper been blessed by the peer-reviewed priest

这篇论文是否得到了同行评审的牧师的祝福，

if not then it is epistemologically unclean tainted and sinful

如果没有，那么它在认识论上是不洁的，有污点的，有罪的，

get thee behind me satan as jesus tells peter in the bible

让你在我身后 耶稣在《圣经》中告诉彼得的撒旦

in april of 2015 horton attended a secretive symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research at the welcome trust in london

2015 年 4 月，霍顿参加了在伦敦受欢迎的信托基金举办的一场关于生物医学研究的可重复性和可靠性的秘密研讨会，

attendees were strongly discouraged from reporting what any government agents said or to take photos of the slides presented the symposium horton reports

强烈建议与会者不要报告任何政府特工的言论或拍摄所展示的幻灯片的照片霍顿报告

and i quote touched on one of the most

和我引用的研讨会触及了

sensitive issues in science today

当今科学中最敏感的问题之一，即

the idea that something has gone

fundamentally wrong with one of our

我们

greatest human creations

最伟大的人类创造之一，即

that creation being science itself one

创造本身就是科学本身，出现了根本性的错误，一位

anonymous attendee stated that

匿名与会者表示，

a lot of what is published is incorrect

发表的很多内容都是错误的。 霍顿错误地

acknowledging that large amounts of what

承认，

is published as

以

so-called science amounts to little more

所谓科学的形式发表的大量内容

than toilet paper

只不过是卫生纸而已。

horton as the veteran editor of a

霍顿是一家

prestigious scientific journal

著名科学期刊的资深编辑，

is scathing he says the case against

他严厉批评说，反对

science is straightforward much of the

科学的理由是直截了当的，大部分

scientific literature

科学文献

perhaps half may simply be untrue

也许有一半可能只是简单地阐述了这一点。 不真实，

afflicted by studies with small sample

受到小样本研究的困扰，

sizes

tiny effects invalid exploratory

影响微小，无效的探索性

analyses and flagrant

分析和公然的

conflicts of interest together with an

利益冲突，以及

obsession for pursuing fashionable

痴迷于追求

trends of dubious importance

重要性可疑的流行趋势，

science has taken a turn towards

darkness as one participant put it

正如一位参与者所说，科学已经转向黑暗，

poor methods get results the apparent

糟糕的方法得到了明显的

endemicity of bad research behavior is

流行病

alarming

in their quest for telling a compelling

在寻求讲述一个引人入胜的故事的过程中，不良的研究行为令人震惊，

story scientists too often sculpt data

科学家们经常塑造数据

to fit their preferred theory of the

以适应他们偏爱的世界理论，

world

or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their

或者他们修改假设以适应他们的

data to be clear and this is no

数据，使其变得清晰，这并不是一件

insignificant matter what horton is

小事，霍顿

criticizing here is not the scientific

在这里批评的并不是什么 科学

method

方法，

but the poorly conducted misleading

但伪装

studies that masquerade as real science

成真正科学的、执行不力的误导性研究，

an entire episode could be devoted to

整个剧集可以专门讨论

this important distinction between

scientific method and the body of

科学方法和

accepted so-called scientific facts

公认的所谓科学事实之间的重要区别，

but let's just make a few brief comments

但为了清楚起见，让我们做一些简短的评论

for the sake of clarity

as jordan grant poignantly explains in a

正如乔丹·格兰特在我的脸书时间轴上的一个帖子中尖锐地解释的那样，

thread on my facebook timeline

science is simply a method of inquiry

科学只是一种探究方法，

the scientific method

科学方法

natural science i mean the purpose is to

自然科学，我的意思是目的是

adjudicate the cause of a phenomenon in

裁决自然和物理世界中现象的原因，就是这样，

the natural and physical world

that's it it is simply a method it

它只是一种方法

doesn't speak

不说话，

it isn't consensus it also has nothing

这不是共识，它也与

to do with correlative studies

which is most researched today by

当今研究最多的相关研究无关，

definition if someone claims this is

如果有人声称这是

scientific and it has not gone through

科学的，并且它没有经过

the steps of the scientific method

科学方法的步骤，那么

it is pseudoscience and that is what we

它就是伪科学，这就是什么 我们

see overtaking the academic stage

看到超越学术舞台

jordan hits the nail on the head here

乔丹在这里

speaking of nails herbalist steven

谈到钉子草药师史蒂文

bunner also makes the point succinctly

邦纳也

by further clarifying the linguistic

通过进一步澄清语言

problem here

问题简洁地表达了这一点，

and he says nearly all people in the

他说几乎所有

sciences or its admirers tend to refer

科学界人士或其崇拜者都倾向于参考

to the practice of the scientific method

这种做法 科学方法

not as a technique or an arena of study

不是一种技术或研究领域，

but in more god-like terms such as

而是用更神圣的术语来说，例如

i found an insect new to science or we

我发现了一种对科学来说是新的昆虫，或者我们

did it for science

为科学而做，

in other words linguistically the

换句话说，从语言上讲，

practice of the scientific method is not

科学方法的实践并不被

spoken of as a human pursuit

称为 人类的追求，

but rather as a service to a divine

而是作为对

being known as

被称为

science with a capital s science however

科学的神圣存在的服务，具有资本的科学然而

is not a living being it can't know

不是生物，它不知道

anything possess

任何东西，

anything be or do anything and it

拥有任何东西，可以做任何事情，它

certainly doesn't want stuff

当然不想要东西，

it is a tool like a hammer we found an

它是一种工具 就像一把锤子，我们发现一种

insect new to hammer reveals the

新的锤子揭示了所

linguistic absurdity involved

涉及的语言荒谬性，

nevertheless the majority of

然而大多数

practitioners talk about it as if it is

实践者谈论它，就好像它

indeed a living being of huge stature

确实是一个身材巨大的生物，

whom they serve

他们为它服务，

the very same linguistic absurdity that

buna exposes also applies to the very

布纳揭露的语言荒谬性也适用于非常相似的语言。

title of this video you're watching

你正在观看的这个视频的标题

imagine if i called it is hammer broken

想象一下，如果我称它是锤子破碎，那么

it literally makes

它实际上

no sense i would add that the religious

毫无意义，我想补充一点，

sort of mentality highlighted by buna

布纳强调的宗教心态，

where science is spoken of as a divine

其中科学被视为神圣

being

存在，

only feeds the already rampant dogmatism

只会助长

surrounding many realms of so-called

围绕许多人已经猖獗的教条主义 所谓

scientific endeavor

科学努力的领域，

this should be kept in mind anytime you

每当你

hear people referring to the science or

听到人们提到科学或

believing

相信

in science once science has become

科学时，都应该牢记这一点，一旦科学

conflated with some kind of

与某种

indefinable divinity then it is of

无法定义的神性混为一谈，那么

course

heresy to challenge it when horton says

当霍顿说

science has turned towards darkness he's

科学已经 转向黑暗，他

really denoting the way that so many of

实际上指的是许多

the humans

presumed to be practicing science have

被认为从事科学的人类

themselves turned towards darkness and

自己转向了黑暗，并

ceased rigorously employing truth

停止严格采用真理

scientific method

科学方法，

usually in order to serve the agendas of

通常是为了服务于

those who pay their salaries

那些支付薪水的人的议程，

as one of horton's colleagues put it

正如霍顿的一位同事所说的那样

poor methods get results but if that's

糟糕的方法会得到结果，但如果是这样的

the case you're not really practicing

话，你就不再真正从事

science anymore

科学，

but are engaged in pseudoscience

而是从事

prepared for pr

为公关

and marketing purposes perhaps to

和营销目的准备的伪科学，也许是为了

justify your job title or help your

证明你的职称或帮助你的

employer get a new product to the market

雇主将新产品推向市场，

now listen to this next bit from horton

现在听听这个 霍顿

journal editors deserve their fair share

期刊编辑的下一篇文章也应该受到应有的

of criticism too we aid and abet the

批评 我们支持和教唆最

worst behaviors

糟糕的行为

our acquiescence to the impact factor

我们对影响因子的默许

fuels an unhealthy competition to win a

助长了一场不健康的竞争，以

place in a select few journals

在少数期刊中赢得一席之地

our love of significance pollutes the

我们对重要性的热爱

literature with many a statistical fairy

用许多统计数据污染了文献

tale

we reject important confirmations

我们拒绝童话故事 重要的确认

journals are not the only miscreants

期刊并不是唯一的恶棍

universities are in a perpetual struggle

大学一直在

for money and talent endpoints that

为金钱

foster reductive metrics

such as high impact publication national

assessment procedures incentivize bad

practices

and individual scientists including

和人才而奋斗

their most senior leaders

do little to alter a research culture

一种偶尔会接近不当行为的研究文化

that occasionally veers close to

misconduct

and i would politely suggest that it's a

，我会礼貌地建议这

lot more than just occasionally

不仅仅是偶尔，

but an interesting dichotomy emerges

但出现了一个有趣的二分法，

those on the inside in the know are

那些知情人士

aware that medical science has taken a

意识到医学科学已经

turn into darkness

陷入黑暗

and peer review is broken meanwhile much

，同行评审被打破 与此同时，许多

of the general public

公众

and significant portions of the

和专业界的重要部分

professional world still think of peer

仍然认为同行

review as

评审

not only viable which clearly is not

不仅是可行的，这显然不是

generally speaking

一般意义上的，

but it's held as a transcendent almost

而且它被认为是一种超然的、近乎

magical organizing force

神奇的组织力量，

occurring in the heavenly ivory towers

出现在科学的天堂象牙塔中，是

of science a divine

一种神圣的

force that avoids falling prey to human

力量， 凭借

weaknesses by virtue of the lofty

qualifications of those masters of

那些我们称之为科学家的现实大师的崇高资格，避免成为人类弱点的牺牲品。

reality we call

scientists scientists in this mythology

这个神话中的科学家

aren't quite human there's something

并不完全是人类，还有一些

more something pure

更纯粹的东西，

something that the layman can never be

外行永远不可能成为

an epistemological ubermensch

students of science and medicine undergo

科学和医学的认识论超级学生所经历的 这是

a magical alchemical process as they

一个神奇的炼金过程，他们

proceed through approved educational

通过认可的教育

institutions

机构，

and emerge transformed from their

从

chrysalis with their doctorates masters

蛹中脱胎换骨，获得了博士学位，掌握了

stethoscopes and equations

听诊器和方程式，

they are the chosen ones the purified

他们是被选中的人，被净化的圣人，被救赎的人和

the holy the redeemed

and the righteous the high priests of

正义的人，世俗现代文化的高级祭司，

secular modern culture

their holy dispensations are not to be

他们的神圣特许不是 值得

questioned

质疑的

it is abundantly clear however that not

是，然而，非常清楚的是，

only is the popular view of peer review

不仅同行评审的流行观点

misleading but the most prestigious

具有误导性，而且最负盛名的

publications are some of the very worst

出版物也是一些最严重的

offenders

违规者，

significant scientific publications for

重要的科学出版物

example the journal nature

例如《自然》杂志

have a well-documented history of

有详细记录的对

prejudice against findings or hypotheses

发现或偏见的历史记录。 与

that run contrary to

established scientific dogma ironically

既定科学教条背道而驰的假设 具有讽刺意味的是，

treating many scientists of today the

对待当今的许多科学家

way the catholic church treated galileo

就像天主教会对待

copernicus and bruno

伽利略·哥白尼和布鲁诺一样

writing in the british medical journal

in may 2000 canadian-based researcher

2000 年 5 月，加拿大研究员

david sackett said that he would never

戴维·萨克特在英国医学杂志上撰文表示，他再也不会

again lecture right

正确讲课

or referee anything to do with

或裁判任何事情 萨基特说，我引用的是

evidence-based clinical practice

基于证据的临床实践，

over his concern that experts are

因为他担心专家会

stifling new ideas

扼杀新想法，

he wants the retirement of experts to be

他希望强制专家退休，

made compulsory

sackett says and i quote progress

而我引用的是，

towards the truth is impaired in the

在专家在场的情况下，真相的进展会受到损害，

presence of an expert

as i said gatekeepers trusting

正如我所说的，守门人信任

experts in oncology for example is

专家 例如，在肿瘤学中，

generally a very good way to

通常是一种非常好的方法来人为

artificially speed your trip to the

地加速你的死亡之旅，

grave

particularly if you have metastatic

特别是如果你患有转移性

cancer and don't get me started on how

癌症，并且不让我开始了解

correctly prescribed treatments are one

正确的处方治疗是如何成为

of the leading causes of death in

america today

当今美国死亡的主要原因之一，

and those are just the correctly

而这些是 只是正确

prescribed ones

规定的，

and yet never wants to let unbiased

但绝不想让公正的

research get in the way of a profitable

研究妨碍有利可图的

theology

神学

establishment-supported experts are now

机构支持的专家现在

on a rarefied level that perhaps only

处于一个稀有的水平，也许只有

celebrities can understand

名人才能理解，

and they are virtually promoted as

他们实际上被提升为

demigods today the cult of celebrity is

半神，今天对名人的崇拜是

alive and well

we seem to be replacing evidence and

我们似乎正在用大众权威和感情取代证据和

logic with popularity

逻辑，

authority and feelings and replacing

orthodox religion with the cult of

用

scientism and the church of modern

科学主义和现代

medicine

医学崇拜取代正统宗教，

in the main experts are those people in

主要专家是那些

the establishment who espouse the

拥护

mainstream dogma and reify the

主流教条并在

politically correct belief structures

政治上具体化的建制派人士。 使既得利益受益的正确信仰结构

that profit vested interests

experts are lionized because the world

专家受到推崇，因为当

that made them experts

他们确认已经确立的信仰时，使他们成为专家的世界就会

promotes and validates them when they

促进和验证他们，

affirm the already established beliefs

and the mainstream legacy media is not

而主流传统媒体不仅是

just complicit in this it is absolutely

其中的同谋，而且绝对

instrumental

有助于向广大

in indoctrinating great swaths of

humanity into whatever expert approved

人类灌输 任何专家认可的

theology holds sway

神学都占主导地位，

while all the dissident and equally

而所有持不同政见者和同等

qualified experts are deliberately

资格的专家都被故意

excluded from coverage if you want to be

排除在报道之外，如果你想

horribly misled on any number of

在任何重要问题上受到可怕的误导，

important issues just head straight to

只需直接前往

the legacy media

with a print or tv or even some of the

带有印刷品或电视甚至一些

big tech

大新闻的传统媒体即可 科技

social media outlets and listen to the

社交媒体渠道并听取

establishments

机构

experts or fact checkers

专家或事实核查人员的意见

harvard medical school's dr marcia

哈佛医学院的玛西娅·

einsel is the former editor-in-chief

艾因塞尔博士是

at the respected new england journal of

受人尊敬的《新英格兰

medicine she tells us

医学杂志》的前主编，她告诉我们，

and i quote it is simply no longer

我引用它，根本不再

possible to believe much of the clinical

可能相信太多 对于已

research that is published

发表的临床研究

or to rely on the judgment of trusted

或依赖于值得信赖的

physicians

医生

or authoritative medical guidelines i

或权威医学指南的判断，我

take no pleasure in this conclusion

对这个结论并不感到高兴，这个结论是

which i reached slowly and reluctantly

我在担任《新英格兰医学杂志》编辑的二十年里慢慢地、不情愿地得出的。

over my two decades as an editor of the

new england journal of medicine

consider this statement carefully if

仔细如果

you've been considering receiving the

你一直在考虑接收

latest and

最新和

greatest experimental pointy thingy you

最伟大的实验尖头的东西你

know what i'm talking about

知道我在说什么

i'm reminded of horton's words about

我想起霍顿关于

journal editors we aid and abet the

期刊编辑的话我们帮助和教唆

worst behaviors

最糟糕的行为

our love of significance pollutes the

我们对意义的热爱污染了

literature with many a statistical fairy

文学与许多 统计童话

tale

using statistical manipulation the high

使用统计操纵

priests of the church of modern medicine

现代医学教会的高级牧师

can turn unfavorable results into

可以将不利的结果转化为

apparent

明显的

life-saving breakthroughs worthy of the

拯救生命的突破值得

six o'clock news

六点钟新闻

they can turn water into wine few lay

他们可以将水变成酒很少

people seem aware of the various methods

外行人似乎意识到各种

of manipulation the public is victimized

操纵方法 公众是受害者，

by and

indeed many professionals seem oblivious

事实上，许多专业人士似乎也没有意识到，

as well

most so-called experts in mainline

大多数所谓的主线

medicine are psychologically speaking

医学专家从心理上讲，

just engaged in well-paid group think

只是从事高薪群体思维

and confirmation bias exercises

和确认偏见练习，

vigorously affirming and defending their

大力肯定和捍卫他们的

ego's profitable construction of the

自我，对世界的有利可图的构建

world

many a little more than shills for the

pharmaceutical industry

medicine and science in general to

paraphrase physicist max plonk

物理学家马克斯·普朗克（Max Plonk）的话对制药业和医学科学来说

advance one funeral at a time once the

意味着一次一场葬礼，一旦

public has accepted the scientific

公众接受了科学

establishment's truths narratives

机构的真相叙述

and designated experts then researchers

并指定了专家，那么

whose results or methods

其结果或方法

deviate from the accepted norm can be

偏离公认标准的研究人员就可以

immediately branded as crackpots

立即被处决。 被贴上疯子、疯子、

lunatics

law breakers fringe nuts

pseudoscientists and so on regardless of

违法者、边缘疯子、伪科学家等等的标签，无论

how meticulous their methods and

他们的方法多么细致、

irrefutable their results

结果如何无可辩驳​​，

the media is crucial in this control

媒体在这种控制动态中都是至关重要的，

dynamic

because it sells the establishment's

因为它在推销当权者的

reality while simultaneously waging a

现实的同时，对

psychological war against consumers

消费者发动心理战，让

programming them to passively accept the

他们被动地接受事实。 最

weakest evidence and most illogical

薄弱的证据和最不合逻辑的

arguments and contradictions without

论点和矛盾，毫无

question

疑问，

and indeed big tech outlets have been

事实上，大型科技媒体已经被

co-opted into this

纳入这项

endeavor the opinions and advice of

努力，专家小组的意见和建议

expert panels rank the lowest in the

在

seven level hierarchy of medical

医学证据的七级层次结构中排名最低，

evidence

and yet this is how a large amount of

但这就是大量

public policy is generated

公共政策的产生

including when so-called epidemics occur

包括所谓的流行病发生时，

whether they are real or figments of

无论它们是真实的还是

statistical manipulation and bogus

统计操纵和虚假

diagnostics

诊断的虚构，

thus is the politically correct status

因此，维持政治正确的现状是否会用

quo maintained

rocking the boat with unwanted paradigm

不必要的范式

busters or innovations that permanently

破坏者或永久

cure diseases

治愈

like cancer for instance just isn't how

癌症等疾病的创新来搅动局势？ 不是如何

to get ahead in

在

the world of mainline medicine there is

主流医学领域取得成功，

no profit to be found in cures

在治疗中找不到利润，

cures kill repeat business to return to

治愈会杀死重复业务，

peer review now

现在回到同行评审，

peer review censorship exemplifies the

同行评审审查制度体现了

neophobia in the world

of science which serves to protect the

科学界的新恐惧症，它的作用是保护

status quo rather than improve knowledge

现状，而不是 而不是

by weeding out dubious ideas methods and

通过清除可疑的想法、方法和

data as it's supposed to

数据来提高知识，因为

this supposed mechanism of quality

这种所谓的质量

control has resulted not only in the

控制机制不仅导致

dismissal of loads of important and

大量重要且

credible

可信的

research but it has also let fraudulent

研究被驳回，而且还让欺诈性

research and tons of it

研究和大量研究

be published at the same time papers

在学术期刊上发表。 同时，

that appear to support fashionable ideas

那些看似支持​​流行思想

or entrenched dogmas are likely to fare

或根深蒂固教条的论文也可能表现

well

良好，

even if they are flat out wrong dr

即使它们完全错误，

kaplan has stated and i quote

卡普兰博士已经说过，我引用

peer review is broken it needs to be

同行评审的观点，它需要彻底

overhauled not just tinkered with the

改革，而不仅仅是

incentives should be changed so that

修改激励措施，所以

authors are more satisfied and more

作者更加满意，更有

likely to produce better work

可能创作出更好的作品，

the reviewing is more transparent and

审稿更加透明和

honest and journals do not have to

诚实，期刊不必

manage an unwieldy and corrupt system

管理一个笨拙且腐败的系统，该系统

that produces disaffection and misses

会产生不满并

out on innovation

错过创新，

is it any wonder that dr john ian edis

这有什么奇怪的，约翰·伊恩·埃迪斯

reported in his famous 2005 paper that

博士在 他在 2005 年发表的著名论文指出，

most

大多数

research findings are false the most

研究结果都是错误的，大多数

researched designs and for most fields

研究设计和大多数领域都

let that marinade for a moment most

让这一点暂时搁置，

findings in most fields are false

大多数领域的大多数发现都是错误的，

and sadly that does not stop them from

遗憾的是，考虑到已经概述的问题，这并没有阻止它们

being published and disseminated widely

被广泛发表和传播 令人

given the already outlined problems is

it really surprising that in ian 80's

惊讶的是，用 80 岁的 ian 的

words

话来说，

claimed research findings may often be

研究结果可能往往

simply accurate measures of the

只是对普遍偏见的准确衡量，

prevailing bias

this is exactly what kendrick sackett

这正是肯德里克·萨基特·

kaplan martin and many others are

卡普兰·马丁和许多其他人

indicating

in medical science perhaps more than

在医学科学中所表明的，也许比

virtually any other field there is a

任何其他领域都存在一种

manifest culture of

明显的文化

going along to get along dr mark gerard

相处融洽马克·杰拉德博士是

a mathematician and physician who serves

一位数学家兼医生，也是《

on the editorial board of medicine

veritas the journal of medical truth

医学真理》杂志的医学编辑委员会成员，他

has written the reason for this disaster

写道这场灾难的原因

is too clear

太明显了

the power of money in academic

学术机构中金钱的力量

institutions the current dynamics of

当前的研究动态

research

is more favorable to the ability of

更多 与科学想象力或创造力相比，对

getting grants collecting money and

获得资助、收集资金和

spending it

支出的能力更有利，

than it is to scientific imagination or

creativity

consider pharmaceutical giants like

考虑像

pfizer behemoths who can cop

辉瑞这样的巨头的制药巨头，它们可以

billions of dollars in fines for

因欺诈和欺骗性行为而被处以数十亿美元的罚款，

fraudulent and deceptive practices

and just keep right on rolling ahead

并且继续前进，

with whatever their latest scheme is

无论他们最新的是什么

the big pharma giant has paid more than

4.7 billion dollars in fines since the

自 2000 年以来，这家大型制药巨头已支付了超过 47 亿美元的罚款，

year 2000

for and i quote 80 different crimes and

我列举了 80 种不同的犯罪和

violations including off-label or

违规行为，包括标签外或

unapproved promotion of medical products

未经批准的医疗产品促销、

foreign corrupt practices bribery

外国腐败行为、贿赂

government contracting related offences

政府合同相关犯罪

and drug or medical equipment safety

以及药品或医疗违规行为。 违反设备安全规定，

violations

and here they are now supposedly to save

他们现在应该

the world

with the pfizer pointy thingy which must

用辉瑞尖尖的东西拯救世界，这个东西

not be named but you know what i'm

不能被命名，但你知道我在说什么，

talking about

thanks but i'll pass on that guys i like

谢谢，但我会转告那些人，我喜欢

my blood clean and my dna

我的血液干净，我的DNA

intact let it be noted that with pockets

完好无损 需要指出的是，

so deep these entities have the

这些实体财力雄厚，拥有

resources to demonize

资源妖魔化

and destroy or de-platform any heretic

、摧毁或消除任何

or whistleblower that threatens their

威胁其利润率的异端或举报人的平台，

profit margins

guess who profits from cancelled culture

猜猜谁从取消的文化中获利，

all you have to do is ask who benefits

你所要做的就是问谁受益，

just follow the money returning to peer

只关注金钱 回到同行

review in general peer reviewers who are

评审一般来说，同行评审员

usually not time rich

通常时间不充裕，

don't try to replicate experiments and

不会尝试重复实验，

rarely even request the raw

甚至很少要求提供

data supporting a paper's conclusions

支持论文结论的原始数据，

according to richard smith writing in

根据理查德·史密斯在

peer review and health sciences

同行评审和健康科学中撰写的文章，

peer review is quote thought to be slow

同行评审被认为是引用 缓慢、

expensive

昂贵、

profligative academic time highly

挥霍的学术时间、高度

subjective prone to bias

主观、

easily abused poor at detecting gross

容易产生偏见、容易被滥用、在

defects

and almost useless for detecting fraud

检测重大缺陷方面表现不佳，并且对于检测欺诈几乎毫无用处，而

billions of dollars worth of after the

fact big pharma punishments bears this

大型制药公司的惩罚证明了这一点，

out and that's only the

而这只是

tip of the iceberg what about fake peer

冰山一角，而这只是冰山一角。

review

yes that's right fake review

是的，这是假评论，

berlin-based springer nature who

publishes the aforementioned nature

出版上述《自然》杂志的柏林施普林格·自然公司在

journal

announced the retraction of 64 articles

in 10 journals in an august 18th

statement

in 2015 this followed an internal

2015 年 8 月 18 日的一份声明中宣布撤回 10 种期刊中的 64 篇文章，此前进行了一项内部

investigation which found fabricated

调查，发现与这些文章

peer review write-ups linked to the

相关的捏造同行评审文章

articles

the purge followed and i quote similar

purge 紧随其后，我引用了

discoveries of

fake peer review by several other major

其他几家主要出版商的虚假同行评审的类似发现，其中

publishers including london-based biomed

包括总部位于伦敦的 Biomed

central and arm of springer

Central 和 Arm of Springer，

which began retracting 43 articles in

该出版商于 3 月份开始撤回 43 篇文章，引用捏造的

march citing reviews from

fabricated reviewers to be clear yes

审稿人的评论，以明确的是，

that means reviewers that don't exist in

这意味着审稿人不存在 为了

response to fake peer review some

回应虚假的同行评审，一些

publishers have actually ended the

出版商实际上已经结束了

practice of author suggested reviewers

作者建议审稿人的做法，

that's how bad it got but i've been

这就是它有多糟糕，但我一直在

saving the best for last

为最后的女士们先生们保留最好的，

ladies and gentlemen i give you the

我给你们

conceptual penis

概念性的阴茎，

not that long ago two scientists

不久前，两位科学家

performed brilliant so-called style hoax

表现出色，所以 -

on the journal cogent social sciences

在《令人信服的社会科学》杂志

under the pen names jamie lindsey and

上，以杰米·林赛和彼得·博伊尔的笔名，

peter boyle

and writing for the fictitious southeast

为虚构的东南

independent social research group

独立社会研究小组撰稿，被

peter bogossian and james lindsey wrote

a deliberately absurd paper loosely

composed in the style of what they

called

称为“风格

post-structuralist discursive gender

骗局”。 结构主义话语性别

theory

理论

what exactly that is they made no

到底是什么，他们没有

attempt to find out the authors tell us

试图找出作者告诉我们的，

and i quote the paper was ridiculous by

我引用这篇论文的意图是荒谬的，

intention essentially arguing

本质上认为

that penises shouldn't be thought of as

阴茎不应该被认为是

male genital organs

男性生殖器官，

but as damaging social constructions we

而是破坏性的社会结构，我们

assumed that if we were merely clear in

假设 如果我们在

our moral implications that maleness is

道德含义上清楚地认识到男性

intrinsically bad and that the penis is

本质上是坏的，而阴茎在

somehow at the root of it

某种程度上是其根源，

we could get the paper published in a

我们就可以将这篇论文发表在一本

respectable journal

受人尊敬的期刊上，

and they did after completing the paper

而他们在完成论文后却

and being unable to identify what it was

无法确定它是什么。

actually about

事实上，

it was deemed a success and ready for

这篇文章被认为是成功的，并准备于

submission which went ahead in april

2017.

2017 年 4 月提交。

it was published the next month after

在经过

some editorial feedback and additional

一些编辑反馈和额外的

tweaking to illustrate how deliberately

调整以说明

absurd the paper is a quote is

这篇论文是多么故意荒谬之后，它于下个月发表，

definitely in order

为了让

we conclude that penises are not best

我们得出结论，阴茎是 最好不要将其

understood as the male sexual organ or

理解为男性性器官或

as a male reproductive organ

男性生殖器官，

but instead as an enacted social

而是一种既定的社会

construct that is both damaging and

结构，对社会和子孙后代来说既具有破坏性又

problematic

存在问题，

for society and future generations and

并且

is the conceptual driver behind much of

是许多气候变化背后的概念驱动因素，用

climate change

in plain english here what they

简单的英语来说，他们

seemingly argued is that a penis is not

似乎认为 阴茎不仅仅是

merely a male social organ or not at all

一个男性社会器官，或者根本不是，而是

but

a social construct instead the

一种社会结构，相反

conceptual penis is

概念性的阴茎

problematic for gender and reproductive

对于性别和生殖身份来说是有问题的，

identity as well as being the conceptual

并且是

driver of climate change

气候变化的概念驱动因素

no i'm not joking how this ever got

不，我不是在开玩笑这是怎么回事

published is

发表的内容

something to ponder the paper is filled

值得深思，这篇论文充满

with meaningless jargon aaron

了毫无意义的行话，亚伦的

nonsense and references to fake papers

废话，以及对假论文

and authors as part of the hosts

和作者的引用，作为主持人的一部分，所

none of the sources that were cited were

引用的来源

even read by the perpetrators

甚至没有被肇事者阅读，

as bogosian and lindsay point out it

因为博戈西安和林赛指出，它

never should have been published

根本不应该被阅读

no one not even the authors know what

没有人发表，甚至作者也不知道

the hell it is actually saying

它到底是什么，

almost a third of the sources cited in

the original version of the paper

论文原始版本中引用的几乎三分之一的来源都

point to fake source such as created by

指向虚假来源，例如由

postmodern generator

后现代生成器创建的，这表明

making mark of how absurdly easy it is

to execute this kind of hoax

执行此操作是多么容易 一种骗局，

especially the author's ad in academic

尤其是作者在学术领域的广告，被

fields corrupted by post-modernism

后现代主义所腐蚀，

commenting on the aforementioned

对上述

problems an article by richard van

问题的评论理查德·范·诺登（richard van Norden）的一篇文章

norden outlines

in april 2010 cyril the bay of joseph

在2010年4月概述了法国格勒诺布尔约瑟夫·

fourier university in grenoble france

傅里叶大学的西里尔湾

used a computer program called

使用一个名为saigen的计算机程序

saigen to create 102 fake papers under

创建了102个假 剑桥麻省理工学院的研究人员于 2005 年以

the pseudonym of ike ant care

ike ant care saigen 的笔名

saigen was created in 2005 by

创建了论文，

researchers at mit in cambridge in order

目的

to demonstrate that conferences would

是证明会议会

accept such nonsense

接受此类废话，

as well as to amuse themselves libay

同时也为了自娱自乐。libay 将这些

added the bogus papers to the google

伪造的论文添加到了谷歌

scholar database which boosted ike

学术数据库中，这提高了 ike

antcai's h index a measure of published

antcai 的知名度。 将当时发表的成果索引

output

to 94 at the time making antcare the

为 94，使 antcare 成为

world's 21st most highly cited scientist

世界上被引用次数最多的科学家中排名第 21 位，

so a non-existent scientist has achieved

因此，一位不存在的科学家在

the distinction of being one of the

world's most

highly cited authors whilst authoring

papers consisting of arta gibberish

in february 2014 it was reported that

2014 年 2 月撰写了包含 arta 胡言乱语的论文的同时，也获得了成为世界上被引用次数最多的作者之一的殊荣 据报道，

springer and the institute of electoral

施普林格和选举

and electronic engineers the ieee

与电子工程师协会 IEEE

were removing over 120 such bogus papers

正在从他们的订阅服务中删除 120 多篇此类伪造论文，

from their subscription services

after labay identified them using his

因为拉贝使用他

own software

自己的软件识别了这些论文。

let me take you all the way back in time

让我带你

to the 1980s to help illustrate how

回到 20 世纪 80 年代来帮助说明

serious this problem of bogus science is

这个虚假科学问题有多严重

and the fact that it actually has very

，事实上它确实具有非常

real social ramifications

真实的社会影响，

we'll go back to dr robert gallo seminal

我们将回顾罗伯特·加洛·塞米纳尔博士

1980s paper supposedly proving

1980 年代的论文，该论文据称证明

that an hiv virus causes aids even after

即使经过

five different teams of investigators

五个不同的科学和法医调查小组的调查，艾滋病毒也会导致艾滋病

both scientific and forensic

established gallows work to be

绞刑架的工作

completely fraudulent and without

完全是欺诈性的，毫无

foundation

根据的。随着

gallows stubbornly held to his hiv aids

mythos as the public and media accolades

公众和媒体的赞誉不断，绞刑架顽固地坚持他的艾滋病毒神话，因为

rolled in

narrowly missing jail time based on a

technicality

技术细节差点入狱，

meanwhile his bogus study remains one of

同时他的伪造研究仍然是

the most highly cited papers in the

scientific and medical world

科学界和学术界被引用次数最多的论文之一。 医学界

defrauding the entire scientific and

欺骗了整个科学界和

medical communities and probably doing

医学界，并且可能

more

than anyone else to lead them down a

比其他任何人都做得更多，引导他们走上一条

fruitless and toxic treatment path for

对数千名艾滋病患者无效且有毒的治疗之路，而

many thousands of aids sufferers

when far better treatments were

当时已有更好的治疗方法，

available all along over 100

超过

000 people have died from the toxic aids

10万人死于有毒的艾滋病

treatment known as azt

despite better options being easily

尽管更好的选择很容易

available but suppressed demonized and

获得，但被称为 azt 的治疗方法

ignored

as usual as any serious investigator

却像往常一样被妖魔化和忽视，因为任何认真的调查员都

knows big farmer never lets the truth

知道，大农场主永远不会让真相

get in the way of profit

妨碍利润，

at least as far back as 1996 journalists

至少早在 1996 年，记者

and researchers have been getting

和研究人员就已经

spoofed papers published in conferences

发表了欺骗性论文 范诺登告诉我们，在会议

or journals to deliberately expose

或期刊中故意揭露

weaknesses in academic quality controls

学术质量控制方面的弱点，

physicist alan sokol of the famous

著名的圈子事件的物理学家艾伦·索科尔在

circle affair succeeded in the journal

social text in 1996

1996年的《社会文本》杂志上取得了成功，

van norden tells us while harvard

而哈佛大学

science journalist john bohannon

科学记者约翰·博汉农则

revealed in a 2013 issue of science that

在2013年的《科学》杂志上揭露了

he had duped over 150

他被欺骗的事实 150 种

open access journals into publishing a

开放获取期刊发表了一项

deliberately flawed study

故意存在缺陷的研究，

bohannon organized submission of the

bohannon 在 10 个月的时间里组织了向全球 304 种开放获取期刊提交了

flawed study technically many different

技术上有缺陷的研究，该

but very similar variations of the study

研究的许多不同但非常相似的变体，其中

to 304 open access journals worldwide

over a period of 10 months

255 of them went through the whole

255 种经历了整个

editing process to the point of either

编辑过程

acceptance or rejection he wrote any

他写信说，无论是接受还是拒绝，任何

reviewer with more than a high school

具有高中以上

knowledge of chemistry and the ability

化学知识和

to understand a basic data plot should

理解基本数据图能力的审稿人都应该

have spotted the paper's shortcomings

immediately

立即发现这篇论文的缺点，

its experiments are so hopelessly flawed

它的实验有无可救药的缺陷，以至于

that the results are meaningless

结果毫无意义，

nevertheless the hoax paper was accepted

尽管如此，这篇骗局论文 被

by a whopping 157 of the 255 journals

255 家期刊中的 157 家接受，

and rejected only by 98 and bohannon

仅被 98 家拒绝，bohannon

tells us to make matters even worse of

告诉我们，在

the 106 journals that did conduct peer

106 家进行同行

review 70

评审的期刊中，情况变得更糟，其中 70 家

of them accepted the paper to gary novak

接受了加里·诺瓦克 (Gary Novak) 的论文，

and i quote if peer review were open and

如果同行评审开放的话，我引用一下 和

accountable there might be a small

负责任的，

chance of correcting some of the

corruptions

through truth and criticism but the

通过真相和批评纠正一些腐败的机会可能很小，但由于剥削和腐败过程，这个

process is cloaked in the darkness of

过程被隐藏在匿名的黑暗之中，

anonymity

due to the exploitive and corrupt

process nearly everything in science has

几乎所有科学领域都有

official errors within it

官方错误，这是

a culture of protecting and exploiting

一种保护和剥削的文化

the errors creates an official reality

这些错误创造了一个无法反对的官方现实，

which cannot be opposed

now disturbingly we see big tech's

令人不安的是，我们看到大型科技公司对

suppression of free speech aiding and

言论自由的压制，帮助和

abetting the official errors and frauds

教唆了主流医学中的官方错误和欺诈，

in mainstream medical science shutting

down any heretics silly enough to

关闭了任何愚蠢到

criticise

批评

the benevolent offerings and sacraments

of big pharma

大型制药公司的仁慈产品和圣礼的异教徒，

with disastrous social medical and

并带来了灾难性的后果。 世界范围内的社会医疗和

economic results worldwide

经济成果，

you know what i'm talking about we have

你知道我在说什么，我们

even closed national and state

甚至以

borders on the flimsiest of evidence in

最薄弱的证据关闭了国家和州边界，

case someone heaven forbid

以防万一有人

gets a cold a quote in plos medicine

感冒，公共科学图书馆医学上的一句话

offers this brief overview of the state

提供了对这一状况的简要概述。

of play in medical science and i quote

journals have devolved into information

laundering operations for the

pharmaceutical industry

wrote richard horton editor of the

lancet in march 2004.

2004 年 3 月，《柳叶刀》杂志主编理查德·霍顿 (Richard Horton) 撰文称，《医学科学》和《我引用》期刊已沦为制药行业的信息洗钱活动。

in the same year marcia einsel former

同年，《新英格兰医学杂志》前编辑玛西娅·艾因塞尔 (Marcia Einsel) 痛斥制药业主

editor of the new england journal of

medicine

lambasted the industry for becoming

要沦为

primarily a marketing machine and

营销手段 《

co-opting every institution that might

stand in its way

jerry casara another former editor of

the new england journal of medicine

新英格兰医学杂志》的另一位前编辑杰里·卡萨拉（Jerry casara）

argues that the industry has deflected

认为，该行业已经偏离了

the moral compasses of many physicians

许多医生的道德准则，

and the editors of plos medicine have

而《公共图书馆医学》的编辑们则

declared that they will not become part

宣称他们不会成为 用

of the cycle of dependency

between journals and the pharmaceutical

industry in the words of john ian edis

john ian edis 的话说，期刊与制药行业之间的依赖循环的一部分，

most scientific studies are wrong and

大多数科学研究都是错误的，而且

they are wrong because scientists are

它们是错误的，因为科学家对

interested in funding and careers rather

资金和职业感兴趣，而

than truth

不是真相

clearly the problem of corruption and

清楚，腐败和

conflicts of interest have been

利益冲突问题一直存在。

increasingly on the radar of

professionals for some time now

一段时间以来，它越来越受到专业人士的关注，

so much so that it has been the subject

以至于它成为

of an increasing number of articles and

越来越多文章和

editorials

社论的主题，

conveying the sheer depth and breadth of

venality and deception to the

向外行人传达了唯利是图和欺骗的深度和广度，

uninitiated however presents a big

但它提出了一个巨大的

challenge

挑战，

and it isn't just conflict of interest

而且它并不是 同行评审的失败只是利益冲突

and corruption to blame for the failure

和腐败造成的，

of peer review

there is human bias shoddy review work

存在人为偏见、劣质评审工作、

fake reviewers and fraud

假审稿人和欺诈

and varying other human interests to

以及其他各种人类利益，

factor in at the very least we need to

至少我们需要

cease indoctrinating students into the

停止向学生灌输“

dogma that all good things have been

一切都是好事”的教条。 已经

sacralized by so-called peer review

被所谓的同行评审神圣化了，

and the converse that anything that has

相反，任何

not been peer reviewed is probably

未经同行评审的东西都可能是

blasphemous and crafted by the hands of

亵渎的，是由异教徒之手制作的，

heretics

it turns out that science as an

事实证明，科学作为一个

institution is broken

机构已经被打破，

and the old boys club in charge of much

老男孩俱乐部负责许多

peer review is not the least bit

同行 评论

interested in evidence or truth

对证据或真理一点也不感兴趣，

especially in mainstream medicine truth

尤其是在主流医学真理

transparency

透明度

innovation and progress are sacrificed

创新和进步被

by the high priests

at the altar of the church of modern

现代医学教会祭坛上的大祭司牺牲了

medicine as much of half as what is

一半，

published as science is likely to be

因为科学可能是

junk and we can name any number of

垃圾 我们可以举出许多

well-known biomedical corporations that

知名的生物医学公司的名字，它们

have no qualms whatsoever

毫不犹豫地向

about selling the masses junk science to

大众出售垃圾科学，以

push their latest unnecessary product

推销他们最新的不必要的产品，

and please their stockholders

请他们的股东在

keep that in mind next time the

下次

government pharma media complex

政府制药媒体综合体

presents the next so-called life-saving

提出下一个所谓的产品时记住这一点。 在病理倒置的世界中，救生

drug or needle

药物或针头

in a world of pathological inversion

these things often turn out to achieve

这些东西往往会达到与

the very opposite of what is advertised

广告宣传相反的效果，

we have got to take responsibility for

我们必须对

our own health and our own safety and

自己的健康、安全和

our own lives

生命负责，

we cannot rely on so-called authorities

我们不能依赖这样的东西——

or experts to do it for us

if you're a conscious freedom seeker or

如果您是一个有意识的自由寻求者或

out of the box entrepreneur who's

开箱即用的企业家，

looking to experience more freedom and

希望体验更多的自由和

time to do what you love

时间来做您喜欢做的事情，

then i want to share something with you

那么我想与您分享一些

that was a game changer for me

改变游戏规则的东西 就我

personally

个人而言，

i'm a member of a community that shows

我是一个社区的成员，该社区向

you how to create high commission sales

您展示如何在网上创建高佣金销售，

online

while making a positive impact in the

同时对世界产生积极影响，这被

world it's called the freedom era

称为自由时代，在

and it's a place where you're not only

这里您不仅可以

learning the most important skill set of

学习最重要的技能

our time

我们的时代

The broken system of the Scientific Peer Review process | Author Matt Ridley

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGZkcpX7U5E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7d_Tht7uWBY

Challenges for scientific peer review

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h74yWYL_Z08

Can Science be Trusted? A Scientist's Perspective on Peer Review, Bias, Consensus, & Reproducibility

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iAOwTGF8ao

Peer review manipulation. New challenges and new solutions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxB3yy2H7j4

The BROKEN system at the heart of Academia