Shedding Light On Humanity And Exposing Corruption Within Our Leadership


Fake Science: Proof of Peer Review Corruption

March 12th, 2018 11:00am

Fake Science: Proof of Peer Review Corruption

It is the intent of this author to expose the underbelly of "peer review science", as our world has come to rely so heavily on it's misgivings.

In the following text, reader please think about some of the most crucial information and practices that are being perpetuated by so called "top scientists", doctors and government in the name of health and planet.

Put on your thinking cap and ponder the true purpose of the following bullet points, then ask "why are they doing this to us?"

1.   Al Gore and his "global warming" agenda

2.   Statins for reducing cholesterol

3.   Fluoride in drinking water for preventing tooth decay

4.   5 and 6 G cell towers for faster delivery of data heavy entertainment

5.   GMO food crop proliferation

6.   Fake sugar

7.   The microwave oven

8.   Roundup and other weed and insecticides.

9.   Chemtrails

10. Vaccination


These are the most profuse, life altering subjects accepted by peer review science and government. Are these not the people we most heavily rely on for a better life?

The following are quotes from authors, doctors and scientists.

"The public needs to be warned: peer review is largely a sham and will not protect you or your family from medical pseudo-science or dangerous pharmaceutical products. Your doctor’s word should not be blindly trusted, especially when we know that doctors rely absurdly heavily on information provided by the pharmaceutical industry itself  in developing their views and opinions." - Brendan D. Murphy/ Author, Activist

Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.” - John Ionnidis / Stanford School of Medicine

Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry”-  Richard Horton/ editor of The Lancet

In a hoax study to prove the invalidity of "peer review science", it was found beyond a reasonable doubt that this system of leadership is in and of itself the true hoax.

Reader, you have got to read this.

The Hoax Study of the Conceptual Penis Blamed For Climate Change

(T3 gives credit to Brendon Murphy for a portion of the following information)


Recently two scientists performed a brilliant Sokal-style hoax on the journal Cogent Social Sciences. Under the pen names “Jamie Lindsay” and “Peter Boyle,” and writing for the fictitious “Southeast Independent Social Research Group,” Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay wrote a deliberately absurd paper loosely composed in the style of “post-structuralist discursive gender theory” — what exactly that is they made no attempt to find out.

The paper was ridiculous by intention, essentially arguing that penises shouldn’t be thought of as male genital organs but as damaging social constructions. We assumed that if we were merely clear in our moral implications that maleness is intrinsically bad and that the penis is somehow at the root of it, we could get the paper published in a respectable journal.

And they did. After completing the paper, and being unable to identify what it was actually about, it was deemed a success and ready for submission, which went ahead in April 2017. It was published the next month after some editorial feedback and additional tweaking. To illustrate how deliberately absurd the paper is, a quote is in order:

"We conclude that penises are not best understood as the male sexual organ, or as a male reproductive organ, but instead as an enacted social construct that is both damaging and problematic for society and future generations… and is the conceptual driver behind much of climate change." - Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle/ Southeast Independent Social Research Group

{Baron T3: Reader, remember, this is a completely fabricated study concocted to prove that "peer review science" will accept anything and publish it without even peer reviewing it. It proves in this instance that there are serious problems in our scientific leadership. It is the belief of this author that this irresponsibility is an excuse for real corruption by design.}

In plain English, they argued here that a penis is not a male sexual organ but a social construct; the “conceptual penis” is problematic for “gender, and reproductive identity,” as well as being the “conceptual” driver of climate change. How this ever got published is something to ponder. The paper is filled with meaningless jargon, arrant nonsense, and references to fake papers and authors.

As part of the hoax, none of the sources that were cited were even read by the hoaxers. As Boghossian and Lindsay point out, it never should have been published. No one , not even Boghossian and Lindsay , knows what it is actually saying.

Almost a third of the sources cited in the original version of the paper point to fake sources, such as created by Postmodern Generator, making mock of how absurdly easy it is to execute this kind of hoax, especially, the authors add, in “‘academic’ fields corrupted by postmodernism.


Any reasonable person would have to proclaim this a disaster directed at humanity.

Dr. Marc Girard, a mathematician and physician who serves on the editorial board of Medicine Veritas spoke of such; "The reason for this disaster is too clear: the power of money. In academic institutions, the current dynamics of research is more favorable to the ability of getting grants, collecting money and spending it, than to scientific imagination or creativity.".

Richard Horton sums it up by saying "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. "

Ok look, this hoax study makes a point. Peer review science can be manipulated because it is intrinsically irresponsible. It's plain and simple.

So how does this fit in with T3 views of the One World Order that is being shoved down our throats?

I'll leave you this to ponder.

March 26th 1922 New York Times article quoting Mayor of New York, John Hylan; "The warning of Theodore Roosevelt has much timeliness today, for the real menace of our republic is this invisible government which like a giant octopus sprawls its slimy length over city, state, and nation.

It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers, and every agency created for the public protection.

To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interest and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as international bankers (Rothschild family). This little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States Government for their own selfish purposes.

They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cats-paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort o every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business... these International Bankers and Rockefeller- Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country."


This my friends is the agenda and how they do it.


Say NO! to the One World Order.


Follow T3 on facebook.


Baron- T3







Location: Blog >> Fake Science: Proof of Peer Review Corruption

Big Pharma
Chem Trails
New World Order



Return to Top