User talk:2600:8800:6102:F400:25E0:D270:300D:2573

Peer Review
Peer Review Wikipedia

I read through your page pertaining to peer review. I wrote a novel about peer review - it was published in 2009 to much acclaim. It's still available on Amazon. Since then, I have reorganized the novel, it is improved and once again I have several publishers who would like to republish the book.

Peer Review or a Witch Hunt your big brother is watching you. ISBN-13	978-1608605415

The wider scope of peer review

I agree with the presentation, however, peer review is much broader than academic peer review and there is one very large peer review topic that is not presented at all. That has become known as sham peer review. Medical peer review was first discussed in a book published in the 9th century called Ethics of the Physician by an Arab doctor named Ishāq ibn ʻAlī al-Ruhāwī. A more modern father of peer review is noted as Henry Oldenburg FRS (1619–1677) - a German-born theologian, diplomat, and philosopher, fluent in multiple languages, who became the first Secretary of the Royal Society. Sham peer review is now extensive, certainly in the academic world, and it is typically devastating to the target. Perhaps no better illustration was the sham negative peer review called the “salve code” of 1705, the hypodescent law associated with slavery i.e. partus sequitur ventrem (1662) from Roman law – “that which is born follows the womb.” What that meant was if the mother was a slave any offspring were automatically slaves indentured for life. By hypodescent, persons of even partial African ancestry were classified as socially inferior to whites. The Continental Congress in 1787 awarded blacks 3/5 of the value of a white person. Should a physician peer review target prevail, which is rare, certainly in medicine and academia, the only outcome he or she may receive is injunctive relief. That is because anything labeled peer review has been officially immunized in medicine by HCQIA 1986. (Health Care Quality Improvement Act). That law permits and perhaps condones unethical peer review - not infrequently used to remove a financial competitor. The peer reviewer(s) not uncommonly, will employ a procedure known as gunny-sacking because there are no penalties in most states due to the immunity clauses that cloak peer review. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deliberated on this issue and considered HCQIA’s four essential questions: 1- Were their actions taken in the reasonable belief that they furthered quality health care? 2- Was there a reasonable effort to obtain the facts? 3- Were adequate notice and hearing procedures afforded to the affected physician? 4- Did they reasonably believe that their adverse action was warranted by the known facts? There was no dispute that these were then, and still are; the requirements for immunity under the HCQIA. Of most importance to hospitals and counsel for physicians on both sides of these situations, the Fifth Circuit held: • The HCQIA's reasonableness requirements were intended to create an objective standard of performance rather than a subjective good faith standard. • The Court's review of the reasonableness of the defendants' decisions must be based on the information known to them at the time, and not what might be later shown to be true by experts or otherwise. • Immunity does not require the defendants (peer reviewers) to have been correct or “right” in their findings, only that their findings were objectively reasonable under the facts available at the time. • Plaintiff's allegations of anti-competitive motives and 'evil intent' are of no consequence to the immunity offered by the HCQIA if the defendants' actions are objectively reasonable. • Immunity from money damages under the HCQIA does not require compliance with the hospital's medical staff bylaws, as long as the four requirements of the HCQIA set forth above have been met. All of those conditions can be gerrymandered to achieve the desired outcome. Senior v lesser - senior wins. The target, even if he or she prevails, cannot sue for damages so long as the term peer review is applied. Even if proven false, misleading, or malicious it remains immunized. For example, if you are undergoing a jury trial the common statement is you have been found innocent or guilty as the case may be, by a jury of your peers. That is actually false; the jurors are typically never your peers, opposing counsel makes very certain of that. Modified on-the-spot peer review is extensive in sports. Assume a professional is playing tennis and serves - the receiver calls it out, the server calls it in. There is a dispute. These days due to squabbles of the past, there is a high-speed camera system that can indicate it's either on or off the line. That's a peer-review process. Same in - football, basketball, baseball, swimming, and horse racing, etc. Sometimes it's called a photo-finish. Peer review will be in widespread use during any Olympic Games. They are typically called referees. They are essentially on-the-spot peer reviewers. But peer review goes much deeper than that. A woman who agrees to marry a man and both say "I do" is a very long-term, or should be, a positive peer-review commitment. When a divorce or separation occurs that converts to a negative peer-review process. That second negative peer review process is more likely than not, not immunized, and is replete with lawyers and lawsuits. If you apply for a position and get appointed to a job that is a positive peer-review process. On the other hand, if you disappoint your employer and get fired that's a negative peer review process. In that second situation, it's always a one-way event. The more senior person can dismiss you - negative peer review again, but if you try to dismiss your boss that will not work. Negative peer review is not designed to fail. It does not need a consensus. Next, consider other negative or positive peer review processes not confined to academia or medicine - note the peer reviewers are all immunized - that's the important part. There are many examples of peer review misuse due to immunity, here are a few. Many have been called something else but the basis for the action is peer review. Hitler had one particular negative peer review standard - Jew. He murdered about 7 million of them. He immunized himself. Hitler negatively peer-reviewed the Upper Austrian town of Döllersheim and blew it to smithereens in 1938, why? Because it was the town that registered the births, deaths, and marriage certificates for that region of Austria. Why was that important to Hitler? It had a lot to do with the birth of his father Alois Schicklgruber, (1837). You see Adolph Hitler's paternal grandmother was a loose, unmarried young teenager called Anna Maria Schicklgruber living and working at the time as a domestic for the de Rothschild’s in Vienna - she was quite possibly impregnated (~ October 1836) by an 18-yr old son of Baron de Rothschild - he was a Jew. There was another possibility Frankenberger was a Graz Jew and he had a nineteen-year-old son who also stood a good chance of being the father of Alois Schicklgruber. The Frankenbergers certainly assisted financially in young Alois' growth up to age 18. Either way, that automatically made Hitler a "mischlinge" or a vierteljude - a quarter Jew! If any one of the four grandparents was Jewish that qualifies. But in this case, the father was not entered into the birth certificate that also meant Alois was illegitimate. In a subsequent peer review event in "il" was erased and the name was changed first to Heidler and later converted to Hitler. There were jokes about that - Heil Schicklgruber did not roll off the tongue as tippingly as did Heil Hitler. Hitler could not let his father's conceivable Jewish illegitimacy out, so he negatively peer-reviewed the town and obliterated it, and eliminated as many Jews as he could. Why would he do that? It was all related to 1750 - to be in the SS you had to prove an unbroken father-son, father-son lineage back as far as 1750, Hitler could not do that due to the illegitimacy of his father and not being able to prove who his paternal grandfather was with certainty. And probably didn't want to because his paternal grandfather was conceivably a Jew. So he eliminated the documentation (the town of Döllersheim with field artillery), and negatively peer-reviewed and murdered as many Jews as he could. Once immunity is established that kind of sham negative peer review is achievable. There have been DNA tests on Hitler’s living descendants and the Haplogroup E1b1b1 chromosome is found in the Hitler family. That same chromosome was found in hairs from Eva Braun's hairbrush (Hitler's girlfriend) suggesting she too had Jewish ancestry. That particular chromosome is found in Ashkenazi Jews. That finding is suggestive but not conclusive that Hitler was a quarter Jew. Stalin used negative peer review extensively to murder about 30 million Ukrainians. He applied the term dekulakization and employed the Holodomor in 1933 to do that. He also negatively peer-reviewed his own name. He was born Iosif Vissariionovitch Dzhugashvili, he didn't like that name so he changed it to Joseph Stalin. Why would he do that? Turns out Stalin means man of steel - his birth name, Dzhugashvili means son of trash. Hence the negative peer-review of his birth name. The great Julius Caesar who changed time with his Julian calendar was negatively peer-reviewed by the Roman Senate. They stabbed him 39 times many of them in his back, on the Ides of March in 44BC. But to do that without consequences needed immunity, and they had to be successful in the desired death of Caesar. As one novelist put it "if you kick a tiger in the ass, you'd better have a plan for its teeth." That kind of philosophy is ingrained in peer review. So the senate engineered their immunity regardless of the outcome by completing their negative peer review murder action in Pompey's Theater. Why would that get them immunity? Because it was outside the Cippi Stones that ringed Italic Rome. Inside the Cippi Stones and the interconnecting virtual Pomerium was the sacred City of Rome outside that was just land. You could not have a weapon inside the Cippi Stones, outside was another matter. That's how they acquired immunity. Chairman Mao negatively peer-reviewed and murdered about 70 million Chinese because they did not observe his official "two whatever’s policy." What meant was that if you thought or spoke differently from whatever Chairman Mao thought or said then you were negatively peer-reviewed and you died. Defense counsel was not provided or accepted. Pol Pot murdered about a third of the Cambodian population starting in 1975 - he used an unusual negative sham peer review condition - if you wore glasses you might be intelligent so he ordered his Khmer Rouge guards to slam a pick-ax in your head. He figured sweat was cheaper than bullets. Presidents Trump and Biden both negatively peer-reviewed China due to the COVID-19 pandemic - with reason perhaps. A woman by the name of Catherine de Medici negatively peer-reviewed non-catholic citizens in France. She set up the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. 23-24 August 1572 in Paris - she had over 100,000 Protestants murdered because they were non-Catholic - the peer reviewers tossed thousands of bodies in the Seine River, which fouled the river - that is an example of severe negative peer review based upon religious intolerance. The Pope struck a medal to rejoice over these murders. She negatively peer-reviewed people and murdered them actually faster than Hitler did but for a shorter period of time. As a positive peer review outcome from that massacre came the first and second amendments of the US Constitution. The second amendment is under significant negative peer-review at this time. King Henry VIII negatively peer-reviewed the Pope because he would not grant him a divorce from his first wife. He granted himself a divorce and negatively peer-reviewed the Catholic religion and replaced it with the Anglican religion. In the process, he negatively peer-reviewed several of his six wives and had two of them beheaded because they could not bear him a son. His status as king conferred his immunity from prosecution for murder. Pontius Pilate was forced by the Sanhedrin Jews to negatively peer review and crucify Jesus Christ to avoid an insurrection. Jesus was charged with and found guilty of blasphemy because he claimed he was the son of God. Pilate was the Roman procurator in Caesarea so he had his immunity and crucified Jesus. His wife thought this was sham peer review. She was likely correct but had no influence. The deed occurred. A very negative peer review event. Sweeney Todd murdered people because they had no close relatives living in London (his form of sham negative peer review immunity). Mrs. Lovett used the rendered human meat in her delicious veal pies. Louis Braille was negatively peer-reviewed during Napoleon's time because he was a 12yr old frail blind boy who had invented Braille. Napoleon's artillery officer Captain Charles Barbier de la Serre negatively peer-reviewed the thin blind boy, and Braille did not appear until many years after Braille had died. The calendar has been both negatively and positively peer-reviewed and changed many times for many thousands of years. During London's plague, dogs and cats were negatively peer-reviewed and killed in massive numbers because the authorities thought they were plague vectors. Turns out they were all innocent, slaughtered victims of animal sham negative peer review. The real culprits were rats and their fleas - the latter biting for blood on humans with the plague infecting agent in the flea saliva. The plague was reversed by the great fire of London that commenced due to fear of another peer review event. Tom Fraynor broke William the Conqueror's "Courve feu" law, put into place in 1066. "Courve feu" [French], literally means cover fire before the citizen went to sleep, many of the buildings then were wooden structures so that made sense. And why did Tom Fraynor break that law? Because he was King Charles II bread maker and he didn't want the king's morning bread and toast to not be available for his king’s breakfast so kept his ovens burning overnight - he was concerned that the king in another negative peer review condition might say, "subject you have displeased me, off with your head!" But there were two long-lasting positive peer review events that followed. The great fire of London in 1666 started by Tom Fraynor's overnight burning ovens in Pudding Lane destroyed about 70% of London's buildings, burned most of the rats and their fleas and the plague was eliminated. But 70-80,000 of London's citizens were rendered homeless and penniless overnight. The second positive peer review event in some persons' minds is the term courve feu itself which has been converted to curfew in English. We all know what that means. We can thank William the Conqueror for that convention. Only he set it into law for a different but perhaps connected reason. He was worried about fire. We are worried about children out after 10:00 pm. So in summary, peer review is much more extensive than presented in your article. The other component of peer review is whether it is open or closed which is briefly discussed. Open is generally more ethical being subject to discovery whereas closed peer review is typical of sham peer review and is not subject to discovery. Once the term peer review is applied, litigation is not permitted in most situations regardless of whether it is ethical or not. Peer review deserves a wider definition rather than simply an academic literary or professional activity. A car is a car but there are many kinds of cars. When peer review is cloaked in immunity it can and has been subject to significant abuse. In many situations, it can be apocalyptic for the target. In many situations, peer review has been highly beneficial but it does have a dark side. 2600:8800:6102:F400:1DDE:9F73:8418:9617 (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)