Peer Review: How Daft Headlines Are Made

William Tyndale caused a right royal stir back in the 16th century. His crime was to produce a Bible written in English ... they executed him for it.

Prior to this, the Church was the only keeper of the word of God. Bibles were written in Latin, and even members of the public who were able to read at all - not too many in those days - had no chance of deciding for themselves if they were being sold a pup by the Latin-educated clergy. Enabling the testaments to be understood in English was unacceptable, so poor William had to go, violently natch.

What the Church said went. And it was non-negotiable, anyone who attempted to do so was a heretic. They hadn't seen what the Church had seen, you see, and the Church could interpret the word of God howsoever they saw fit.

Every industry seeking to jealously guard their power must shun accountability and debate like this, and for the modern dictatorial Church - that of public health - their altar and chalice are the epidemiological study and peer review. And their excommunication is the threat of cancer and death should you disobey their word.

They talk in their own circles, only venturing out of the inner sanctum of closed discussion groups to issue press releases with their pious pronouncements; their articles invariably shun comment or debate; anyone with the wherewithal to oppose them is silenced; and they communicate even mundane information not through letters or open forums, but by way of yet another impenetrable and restricted study.

These studies are then 'peer-reviewed' (i.e. approved by their mates), which is designed to put a full stop at the end of their argument through which no-one must dare to venture. If it's peer-reviewed, you see, it's now fact in their opinion, and you must believe in a flat earth if you disagree. You will see many a public health tax leech professional fall back on this tactic when things don't look to be going their way.

"But it's peer-reviewed!", they will arrogantly declare, before ignoring all objections and scurrying back to the holy of holies with their equally shadowy colleagues to plan the next sleight of hand to enrich themselves.

Just as in Tudor times, the vast majority of the public will never see the misdirection being played upon them. The authority of the unintelligible word is all powerful. Doctors talk in English, but not in an accountable form that the average Joe would be able to interact with. They may as well be talking in Latin.

This self-protecting approach leads to daft headlines like this.

Ice cream as 'addictive as drugs' says new study

And somewhere - in fact, in many many places - this becomes a fact despite it being execrable bollocks.

"This down-regulation pattern is seen with frequent drug use, where the more an individual uses the drug, the less reward they receive from using it," said Dr Burger, the study's co-author.

"This tolerance is thought to increase use, or eating, because the individual trying to achieve the previous level of satisfaction.

“Repeated, overconsumption of high-fat or high-sugar foods may alter how the brain responds to those foods in a way that perpetuates further intake."
He added: "The data supports the theory that overeating such foods may result in changes in how the brain responds to those foods in a similar fashion seen in drug addiction."

We know it's bollocks only because their own side have mildly debunked it, probably since it is so absurd that even Mrs Prunehat and her puritan daughters would notice the nonsensical nature of the claim. That's not good for the aura of the new Church.

But this idiocy was peer-reviewed.

The study was carried out by researchers from the Oregon Research Institute in the US. Sources of funding were not clear. The study was published in the peer-reviewed American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

Which is probably why it was published in all its glory by woeful hacks.

Likewise, Jill Pell's egregious mendacity is regularly reported by way of 'science by press release', despite having no basis in fact whatsoever. It's peer-reviewed, of course, so it must be true.

Despite being plainly false, it is also touted as fact in parliament itself, because it's peer-reviewed, innit?

The most notable health gain for members of the public is the fall in the number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction. Researchers at the university of Bath have calculated that there has been a 5% drop in the number of heart attacks in England (also peer-reviewed, also false), attributable to smoke-free legislation. The figure was higher for Scotland and it was measured within 12 months of the ban coming into force

This is how headlines are made, and how those who have no hope of seriously challenging them are mostly rail-roaded into believing just about any old crap.

It is how vested interest manufactured myth is transformed into fact, and the method has changed very little since the days of Henry VIII, only the media employed are different.

Do please remember this the next time you hear or read some public health advocate - or their eager entourage of helpful stooges - fall back on the peer review smokescreen. If they resort to the peer-reviewed close down, they're invariably rattled and unwilling to engage in debate for fear of being exposed.

End of discussion. Amen.