Maybe link research papers instead of youtube videos and I can finally see you as something else.

i think we are talking past each other what is your argument?
everything I am talking about is on the top of page one

Peer review was the topic.

" Lets Talk Science. More Specificaly "peer Review"

I then had to explain the difference between dick riding a scientist and reviewing their data.

then you just seen for your self "peer review" can be compromised.

"dick riding" is a ..well? ...........is just a dick argument

Look....the nicest thing i can say to you about this subject is that you're far too ignorant of how Nt of this works to discuss it.

Go back to posting nutjob right wing nonsense that I won't care to correct you on.

this thread clearly shows "peer review" chit article was retracted and why it was chit. time for you to take a walk with your fake arguments.

Peer review is what caused the retraction. What's the issue here?

doing actual science, observable testable repeatable is what really caused the retraction.

The fact it was published too eagerly doesn't change the fact peer review caught it.

Thats 100% the point of data sharing and independent verification.

One scientist failed......oh no the horror!

you dont have the foggiest idea what the thread is pointing out.

"peer review" didnt catch chit. it was peer reviewed and published because they "liked it" it was chit science and it was chit peer review