Editing Peer Review (section)

=== 2021 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1417982625478705152
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Google’s Ngram viewer is an astounding tool for figuring out how much your own mind is fully brainwashed by respectable voices and institutions. 

No one was talking about “refereed journals” before the mid 1960s. This is a fad that doesn’t work. Unless your last name is Maxwell.
|timestamp=10:59 PM · Jul 21, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1417982625478705152-E62vrt4VUAA9nIn.jpg
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1418821315683766273
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=For researchers who live on '''Peer Review''', even the last year and a half cannot shake their belief in '''Peer Review'''!

'''Peer Review''' replaced a system that worked better around the time I was born in 1965. We should talk about whether it works. It doesn’t. It left us weak &amp; deranged.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1418820299689058306
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“If you look at the research that was done, it was highly recommended by *'''Peer Reviewed'''*…by our United States '''Peer Reviews'''. It got a very high score in the '''Peer Review system'''.” -Dr Fauci on the Use of '''Peer Review''' in approving NIH grants for GoFR in Wuhan
|media1=ERW-X-post-1418820299689058306-SLrk1hizioSlNZ1i.png
|timestamp=6:28 AM · Jul 24, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:32 AM · Jul 24, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1441688933960597507
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=“Why don’t people trust science, scientists, peer review and data like they used to do in earlier eras as our most reliable source of ground truth? We’re in a life and death pandemic after all!”

I don’t know. Let me think about that.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=TheLancet-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/TheLancet/status/1441372277786951681
|name=The Lancet
|usernameurl=https://x.com/TheLancet
|username=TheLancet
|content=Our new issue is here! On the cover—'Periods on display' and the cultural movement against menstrual shame and #PeriodPoverty.

Plus, @WHO air quality guidelines, low #BackPain management, community-acquired bacterial #meningitis, and more. Read: http://hubs.li/H0Y33_L0
|media1=TheLancet-X-post-1441372277786951681-FAC9inOXEAAlLXx.jpg
|timestamp=12:01 PM · Sep 24, 2021
}}
|timestamp=9:00 AM · Sep 25, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1444089490327232512
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=If trust is the issue, don’t fake a backdrop with phony windows. Use a curtain. Use a panel. Use a photo op in a garden. But don’t fake anything. It breaks trust. You have to Build it instead.

No part of this is difficult to understand if you want buy-in.

Have a great weekend.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1444089486388781059
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=It might not be a problem if trust were high.

If you STILL feel that the WHO is a simple health organization, @EcoHealthNYC is merely an ecological charity, peer review works in gain of function, etc., you aren’t bothered by much of ANYTHING.

It’s the rest of us I’m addressing.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=conradgoehausen-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/conradgoehausen/status/1444077142032089090
|name=Conrad Goehausen 🌊🌊⚡💘⚡🌊🌊 #FBR
|usernameurl=https://x.com/conradgoehausen
|username=conradgoehausen
|content=How is using a photo setup in any way significant to the topic? Or are you claiming that the booster shot wasn't real? Or are you just being meta-ironic?
|timestamp=11:09 PM · Oct 1, 2021
}}
|timestamp=11:58 PM · Oct 1, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1444089488943116294
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I’m making the point that trust is *THE* issue. Many of the unvaccinated have taken vaccines their whole lives. For those folks, this is the first Vaccine they don’t trust. Think about that. We are labeling people crackpots and anti-vaxxers who have been multiply vaccinated.
|timestamp=11:58 PM · Oct 1, 2021
}}
|timestamp=11:58 PM · Oct 1, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445816124835196929
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=@DrBrianKeating @EcoHealthNYC Or this:

https://conductscience.com/what-is-grant-proposal-peer-review/
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445806211366932483
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have been warning you about [[Peer Review]]. Because almost no one says this, it sounds crazy.

Dr Daszak &amp; @EcoHealthNYC have been thoroughly [[Peer Review|Peer Reviewed]] and are endorsed by the highest levels of scientists. It’s ‘preposterous’ to question a decision to terminate their funding.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Oct 6, 2021
|media1=ERW-X-post-1445806211366932483-FBCJFczVgA80xkA.jpg
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445806214055489537
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I will be held up by PhDs as crazy for saying what I am about to say:

Peer Review is INCREDIBLY dangerous. [[Peer Review|Modern Peer Review]] really begins in the 1960s. It has more to do with Ghislaine Maxwell’s father &amp; Permagon Press than science. 77 Nobel laureates are wrong. We are right.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445806215460622336
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Further the CCP supplies labor for these Nobel laureates to run their teams. Our labor program is disguised as “Graduate Study” and “Post-Doctoral training” so as to avoid unionization, wage scrutiny, and “Labor Certification”. 

Our professors are not acting as scientists here.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445806218887372806
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=[[Peer Review]] has moved from where it began in BioMedicine, to a business model for shaking down universities forced to pay extortionary journal fees, to a funding game of keep away that keeps failed incumbents funded and competitors from being able to show those incumbents failed.
|timestamp=5:40 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445808605639307274
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=What does it tell us about [[Peer Review]] that it allows Dr Daszak, a zoologist w/ a theory of preventing pandemics that sounds more similar to a bioweapon program scouring the earth for lethal pathogens, the ability to be defended by 77 laureates?

This: [[Peer Review|Peer. Review.]] Doesn’t Work.
|timestamp=5:50 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=DrBrianKeating-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating/status/1445811834150260740
|name=DrBrianKeating
|usernameurl=https://x.com/DrBrianKeating
|username=Prof. Brian Keating
|content=“Peer review” is a term typically used for journal articles, not grant proposal reviews. I think it’s sloppy journalism by NPR. Perhaps it’s meant to regularize it for a non-scientific audience, comparing to something the public has heard of & considers the gold standard.
|timestamp=6:02 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1445815788103892993
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The world of biology and medicine grant making works differently than Physics and Mathematics just as NIH/Howard Hughes work differently from DOE/[[National Science Foundation (NSF)|NSF]] respectively: 

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review.htm
|timestamp=6:18 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}
|timestamp=6:20 PM · Oct 6, 2021
}}