>>12545359>You can probably trust actual scientists and their actual, peer-reviewed wordsPeer-reviews are a meme and not reliable. Reviewers are *literally* doing it FOR FREE. That alone should make anyone skeptical.
Yes, peer-reviewed journals are on average more reliable than regular media, however you cannot be a scientist without being a skeptic and you need to be skeptical of the way academia and publishing works, where unironically [[[they]]] make lots of money by putting scientific insights behind paywalls while authors are rewarded with """""exposure""""" and reviewers are not rewarded at all.
It's also much easier to publish an alternative view or unpopular results outside of peer-reviewed journals, because journals are by default regulated and censored and more susceptible to control.
