Here is an extract from your cited PEER REVIEW link.
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that
"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."[23]
(bolding added by poster)
…directing us to your webpage won't work……And nothing I saw there would be evidence to the contrary.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
What you saw were web pages containing summary information and brief examples.
You keep calling for data - “show me the data”, but you have not actually made your way to the documents that contain the DATA for which you call.
Second hand reports don't work. Anecdotal evidence does not work. Self-published webpages/books/journals don't work.
Thank you again, for your personal comment and opinions.
But like I say to everyone, do not just believe the person in the room making the most noise and who is jumping up and down - examine and evaluate the original raw data yourself, and come to your own conclusions.
With this philosophy in mind, I made most of Pegg’s work available for free on the internet (as explained earlier).
