> But there has been damning evidence coming out recently that much of the historical "peer" reviewed studies are in fact wrong or have outright flaws. Sure, I

> But there has been damning evidence coming out recently that much of the historical "peer" reviewed studies are in fact wrong or have outright flaws. Sure, I agree (well, I'd probably replace "much" with a less strong word, and skip the "damning", but that's just semantics). Plenty of studies haven't been demonstrated to be wrong, and plenty of others were wrong despite being correctly designed experiments (something both peer reviewers and the scientists performing the experiments could not have caught). Moreover, many flawed studies haven't been accepted by peer reviewers, which is in fact the purpose of peer review. The biggest problem with peer review is probably publication bias against negative results, without which I suspect most demonstrated scientific fraud wouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean the whole process needs to be thrown out. > Further, I'd say that with the tools being provided for free and the blog posts Kyle's findings are most likely peer reviewed... And copany reviewed... And product team reviewed.. Yes, Kyle does (hell, he's been cited in academic papers). The average person publishing blog posts does not, though.