You won’t see articles critical of scientific judgement in scientific periodicals for the same reason you won’t find pro gun control articles in gun periodicals. No one wants to be cut off from their sources.
Journals CAN refute studies, but prefer not to. Rather they prefer to silently reject articles for publication as part of the peer review process. We’ve seen how that can be corrupted as well.
The Internet now gives us pre-print publication. This is an end-run around peer review. Perhaps not intentionally as the back up for peer review takes so long as it can be seen as an unintentional suppression of important work. But pre-print is unvetted research. Vetting used to be important in the field of Science. As was error analysis. As was reproducible experiments.
….as was honesty….
A far more reliable source of data is Yelp reviews. To wit…
Wuhan Wet Market (one half star):
“The whole family went to Wuhan Wet Market to celebrate cousin Kang Minhul’s birthday. Cousins Fanghua and Huize fought over the menu, and decided for everyone to order the pangolin, family style. Wife Zixiu and I didn’t want that, and she ordered the braised masked palm civet, while I stuck with my favorite of bat lollipops.
“The service was slow, and the waiters rude and offensive. The pangolin was clearly undercooked, because everyone who ate it died – all thirty six of them. Wife Zixiu at least only spent six weeks in the hospital from the civet.
“I would give this place zero stars, except that the bat lollipops were really quite good.”
You can’t get more objective than that.
Both governments very badly want the wet market to be the origin, which immediately tells me it’s from the lab.
You won’t see articles critical of scientific judgement in scientific periodicals for the same reason you won’t find pro gun control articles in gun periodicals. No one wants to be cut off from their sources.
Journals CAN refute studies, but prefer not to. Rather they prefer to silently reject articles for publication as part of the peer review process. We’ve seen how that can be corrupted as well.
The Internet now gives us pre-print publication. This is an end-run around peer review. Perhaps not intentionally as the back up for peer review takes so long as it can be seen as an unintentional suppression of important work. But pre-print is unvetted research. Vetting used to be important in the field of Science. As was error analysis. As was reproducible experiments.
….as was honesty….
A far more reliable source of data is Yelp reviews. To wit…
Wuhan Wet Market (one half star):
“The whole family went to Wuhan Wet Market to celebrate cousin Kang Minhul’s birthday. Cousins Fanghua and Huize fought over the menu, and decided for everyone to order the pangolin, family style. Wife Zixiu and I didn’t want that, and she ordered the braised masked palm civet, while I stuck with my favorite of bat lollipops.
“The service was slow, and the waiters rude and offensive. The pangolin was clearly undercooked, because everyone who ate it died – all thirty six of them. Wife Zixiu at least only spent six weeks in the hospital from the civet.
“I would give this place zero stars, except that the bat lollipops were really quite good.”
You can’t get more objective than that.
Both governments very badly want the wet market to be the origin, which immediately tells me it’s from the lab.