"The peer review process doesn't work. "
This is the above article source:
"If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published.
Consider the finding of another (yes, another) of these replicability studies, this time from a group of cancer researchers. In addition to reaching the now unsurprising conclusion that only a dismal 11 percent of the preclinical cancer research they examined could be validated after the fact, the authors identified another horrifying pattern: The “bad” papers that failed to replicate were, on average, cited far more often than the papers that did! As the authors put it, “some non-reproducible preclinical papers had spawned an entire field, with hundreds of secondary publications that expanded on elements of the original observation, but did not actually seek to confirm or falsify its fundamental basis.”"
If peer reviewed articles can be without merit what info can we depend on to make health decisions or any kind for that matter?
Just look at the numbers dying prematurely with heart disease, dementia, etc from lowering their cholesterol numbers based a false research results to only increase their risks of premature death.