Interesting the authors were medical doctors!
Those guys had knowledge whereas most of our medical doctors today are just really good at memorising algorithms after somehow skating by through organic chemistry and stats for beginners.
@Andre
Peer review is not a substitute for replication, and at times stuff is replicated during peer review.
There are many problems with peer review that often make it practically valueless.
Founding biases are definitely there and they're a big problem, but I wouldn't say political/ideological ones are so important; maybe that's just because my field of research is not so politically exposed.
Plenty of funding biases often lead research towards proving points and ignoring other ones to promote certain industries and their practices, which could otherwise be deemed as dangerous or useless.
@pamby1 @ringo