There is a difference between wrong and fraud. You have to assume that the experiment and the data collected is correct. In a peer review the peer reviewer doesn't perform the experiment over again. The reviewer looks for errors but the peer reviewer cannot find fraud or a willful attempt to mislead. That is now what they are there for. If a study takes 5 years to complete what makes you think that a reviewer who has their own studies that they are working on can replicate and confirm the findings of the original study? Peer review is not what it is sold to the public as. It catches very little which is why most peer reviewed studies are ultimately found to be wrong in some way at some later date.
Originally Posted by philxx
When the (*)(*)(*)(*) did I start talking about god. I think you need to check my other posts before you start bringing religion into this. You don't know what the (*)(*)(*)(*) I think about religion.
NEVER changes is the non-existant God.
Mens Sana in Corpore Sano