Originally Posted by
layman
neville_nobody (and others)
As asked before, what verifiable information do you offer in place of published scientific research?
You seem to omitting the effect of ‘peer review’ from your attempt at disparagement of scientific research (and government statistics).
I would have been very surprised (we’ll never know now) if research sponsored by Epstein would have been published in a recognised scientific journal.
Peer review culls most of the ‘not proven‘/‘not verifiable‘/‘not repeatable’ from publication and is independent of the money. If you’ve been through academic ‘peer review’ you’ll understand just what a blood sport it can be.
There is generally more to be gained by proving some research has issues than the actual research itself.
Don't mistake "peer review" as any sort of gold standard. It does not guarantee that the research is the truth, and it does not guarantee that vested interests are not at work. There is often no process to follow, or level to achieve to claim peer review status. There is little proof that it actually improves anything. It's become a rubber stamp catch-all to stifle debate.