Does Peer-Review Guarantee The Correctness of Conclusions of a Research Paper?

30688690_1853612394669647_5676823721558409216_n

30703728_1853612444669642_3508800814099464192_n

Many people believe that peer-reviewed papers published in journals are ultimate proofs for the correctness of interpretations and conclusions of a Research paper.

Actually, peer review is a process used to determine an academic paper’s “suitability for publication”.

Peer review does not guarantee correctness of a theory, but guarantees only that the format, language, arrangement, organization and presentation of a “paper is suitable for publication”.

We all know there are thousands of peer reviewed articles published in various journals proposing many absurd theories about homeopathy.

Wikipedia says: “Peer review is generally considered necessary to academic quality and is used in most major scientific journals, but it does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.”

Please note, peer review “does by no means prevent publication of all invalid research.”!

Publishing a Peer reviewed article does not mean that the ideas proposed in the article are true and beyond any criticism.

Nobody here questions the claim that the researchers detected nano-sized particles of some elements. What we ask is for an explanation regarding the source of this particles, as well as their role in the therapeutic properties of potentized drugs.

Here I am sharing two slides presented at a “scientific seminar” by a “homeopathy scientist” regarding his ‘nanoparticles study’ of AURUM METALLICUM. His work is also published in a peer reviewed journal!

Watch both slides carefully. It is said that potentized aurum met contains ‘nanoparticles’ containing Aurum, Aluminium, Silica, Pottassium, Ferrum, Cuprum, Indium, Hafnium, Sodium, Chlorine, Boron, Cobalt and Carbon, along with ‘Quantum Dots’.

Nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met contains Aurum in following ratios:

6C contains 2.82%, 30C contains 89.06%, 200C contains 12.14%, 1M contains 1.24%, 10M contains 24%, 50M contains 9.73 %, CM contains 6.58% of elemental aurum.

15.63% of ALUMINIUM is present in nanoparticles detected in Aurum Met 1M. But other potencies of Aurum met does not contain any ALUMINIUM.

Where from this aluminium came in aurum met 1m only, which was not present in 6c, 30c, 200c, 10m or cm?

See the fun.Nanoparticles detected in Aur met 1m contains only 1.24% aurum, where it contains 15.63% aluminium.

If ‘nanoparticles are active principles of AURUM MET 1M, does it act by 15.63% aluminium or 1.24% aurum?

If AUR MET 6C contains AUR 2.82% and CUPRUM 75.82%, which will be the active principles? CUPRUM or AURUM?

If AUR 200 contains AURUM 12.14%, POTTASSIUM 29.36%, CUPRUM 25.8%, and SODIUM 20.08%, how can you say AURUM NANOPARTICLES are the active principles of Aur Met 200?

If AUR MET 50M contains AURUM 9.73% , CUPRUM 53.27%, and COBALT 23%, how can you say it is AURUM MET? Rather callit and use it as CUPRUM MET?

If AURUM MET CM contains AURUM 6.58%. CUPRUM 35.36, and HAFNIUM 36.56%, is it appropriate to use it as AURUM?

Hope some ‘nanoparticles specialists’ would explain.

If you look into these two slides carefully, you will get a lot of things to laugh at!!

If AUR MET 6C contains AUR 2.82% and CUPRUM 75.82%, which will be the active principles? CUPRUM or AURUM?

If AUR 200 contains AURUM 12.14%, POTTASSIUM 29.36%, CUPRUM 25.8%, and SODIUM 20.08%, how can you say AURUM NANOPARTICLES are the active principles of Aur Met 200?

If AUR MET 50M contains AURUM 9.73% , CUPRUM 53.27%, and COBALT 23%, how can you say it is AURUM MET? Rather callit and use it as CUPRUM MET?

If AURUM MET CM contains AURUM 6.58%. CUPRUM 35.36, and HAFNIUM 36.56%, is it appropriate to use it as AURUM?

Remember, they have published these works in “peer reviewed journals”, and a lay man like me should not question it!

Peer-reviewed nonsense! Who are those peers?

Any research paper has TWO aspects. One is related with the the methods used in research and second is the interpretations and conclusions. Peer reviewers consider the first part only to recommend publication. They never verify whether the interpretations and conclusions are correct. If methods and format is according to standards, they will accept it for publication. That is why we say a lot of research works published, with nonsense interpretations and conclusions.

If you have a brain, use it to decide what is right and what is wrong. Do not accept anything as truth, only because there is a “peer reviewed paper” published about it. Do not close your mind towards a new idea only because there no a “published paper”. If you use your brain, you will realize that there are a lot of “peer reviewed papers” which make utter nonsense theories. About homeopathy also. Like nanoparticles theory.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: