Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

peer review went poorly for him

Brutal Reactions

1,693 subscribers

78,646 views • 5 days ago •via X (Twitter)

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

2 Comments

Mike5 days ago

I deserve it 😩😩😔😔

rayven the krayven5 days ago

its very objective for them and the reaction is seen as a small penis admission nevertheless trash -woo men "did they know jack ten folds here"

Related Videos

peer review 👏👏 #OnlyFriendsSeriesEP9

peer review 👏👏 #OnlyFriendsSeriesEP9

phuwintang

788,504 views • 3 years ago

Thorough peer review is essential to high standards in academic publishing MDPI's 2024 author survey states 92% of authors rated our peer review process as excellent/good Watch the video for more insights & see what we are doing to celebrate here -

Thorough peer review is essential to high standards in academic publishing MDPI's 2024 author survey states 92% of authors rated our peer review process as excellent/good Watch the video for more insights & see what we are doing to celebrate here -

MDPI

1,010,744 views • 2 years ago

The poorly educated love him for a reason 🙃

The poorly educated love him for a reason 🙃

Valeria

21,578 views • 3 months ago

Humans are hardwired to forget. But strategies like peer-to-peer explanations, regular review, and interleaving can boost retention, research shows.

Humans are hardwired to forget. But strategies like peer-to-peer explanations, regular review, and interleaving can boost retention, research shows.

edutopia

193,106 views • 3 years ago

Eric Weinstein Exposes the Peer Review Scam: How COVID Blew Up a 50-Year Academic Lie COVID didn’t just break public trust in science—it proved peer review is a manufactured myth, weaponized to gatekeep truth. As Eric Weinstein reveals: 🔹 Peer review isn’t some ancient tradition. It wasn’t born with the Royal Society. Real scholarship shows it was invented between 1965-1975—a bureaucratic tool, not a gold standard. 🔹 The Medicare Act (1965) forced it into existence. Suddenly, the U.S. government had to pay for endless medical procedures. Doctors circled the wagons, creating "peer review" to police themselves—not ensure truth. 🔹 By 1975, the NSF weaponized it. Under pressure, they turned "peer review" into a shield—"Trust us, we’re checking each other!" No—they were protecting each other. 🔹 Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press monetized it. As journals boomed, "peer review" became fake validation for a prestige industry. COVID was the smoking gun: - The Lancet & Nature published fraud (Remember HCQ hysteria? Surgisphere?). - "Peer-reviewed" journals became propaganda laundromats. - The system rewarded groupthink, crushed dissent. Weinstein’s verdict: Peer review is a modern con—a Potemkin process designed to simulate rigor while entrenching power. Until we admit that, "trust the science" is just a demand for obedience.

Eric Weinstein Exposes the Peer Review Scam: How COVID Blew Up a 50-Year Academic Lie COVID didn’t just break public trust in science—it proved peer review is a manufactured myth, weaponized to gatekeep truth. As Eric Weinstein reveals: 🔹 Peer review isn’t some ancient tradition. It wasn’t born with the Royal Society. Real scholarship shows it was invented between 1965-1975—a bureaucratic tool, not a gold standard. 🔹 The Medicare Act (1965) forced it into existence. Suddenly, the U.S. government had to pay for endless medical procedures. Doctors circled the wagons, creating "peer review" to police themselves—not ensure truth. 🔹 By 1975, the NSF weaponized it. Under pressure, they turned "peer review" into a shield—"Trust us, we’re checking each other!" No—they were protecting each other. 🔹 Robert Maxwell’s Pergamon Press monetized it. As journals boomed, "peer review" became fake validation for a prestige industry. COVID was the smoking gun: - The Lancet & Nature published fraud (Remember HCQ hysteria? Surgisphere?). - "Peer-reviewed" journals became propaganda laundromats. - The system rewarded groupthink, crushed dissent. Weinstein’s verdict: Peer review is a modern con—a Potemkin process designed to simulate rigor while entrenching power. Until we admit that, "trust the science" is just a demand for obedience.

Camus

240,802 views • 1 year ago

Russell Vought’s proposal to make politics, not peer review, the standard for NIH science grants would be a cataclysm for the American science enterprise.

Russell Vought’s proposal to make politics, not peer review, the standard for NIH science grants would be a cataclysm for the American science enterprise.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss 🟧

72,655 views • 3 months ago

Bro went on to trash the car given to him to review 🙃

Bro went on to trash the car given to him to review 🙃

The Instigator

121,897 views • 2 months ago

Need a peer review? Use Notion AI to review your code, and keep your projects staying crisp and error-free 👟

Need a peer review? Use Notion AI to review your code, and keep your projects staying crisp and error-free 👟

Notion

25,906 views • 2 years ago

Video review for those overalls you guys went nuts for is up!

Video review for those overalls you guys went nuts for is up!

Mochipan Official

19,044 views • 1 year ago

Our results are fully open to independent peer review, third-party auditing, and methodological replication.

Our results are fully open to independent peer review, third-party auditing, and methodological replication.

Nayib Bukele

225,739 views • 9 months ago

Curious how NIH's new Unified Funding Strategy relates to peer review? Director of NIH’s Center for Scientific Review Dr. Raymond Jacobson emphasizes that the UFS does not change peer review but instead clarifies the core tenets that NIH Institute and Center directors will consider when making funding decisions. 📅 Join NIH leadership on August 14 from 10–11 AM ET to learn more:

Curious how NIH's new Unified Funding Strategy relates to peer review? Director of NIH’s Center for Scientific Review Dr. Raymond Jacobson emphasizes that the UFS does not change peer review but instead clarifies the core tenets that NIH Institute and Center directors will consider when making funding decisions. 📅 Join NIH leadership on August 14 from 10–11 AM ET to learn more:

NIH

19,527 views • 2 months ago

🚨 NEW SCIENTIFIC REVIEW: Nattokinase helps break down SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein, fibrin clots and microclots while supporting cardiovascular health. It's the most comprehensive review yet, now under peer review. ⬇️

🚨 NEW SCIENTIFIC REVIEW: Nattokinase helps break down SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein, fibrin clots and microclots while supporting cardiovascular health. It's the most comprehensive review yet, now under peer review. ⬇️

Catturd ™

115,627 views • 5 days ago

🚨Dr. Elizabeth Potter is exposing United Healthcare’s ‘s peer to peer review for denying patients‼️ Dr Elizabeth Potter is an absolute hero and handled that situation like a pro‼️She stood up for her patient‼️ Health insurance companies are evil ‼️

🚨Dr. Elizabeth Potter is exposing United Healthcare’s ‘s peer to peer review for denying patients‼️ Dr Elizabeth Potter is an absolute hero and handled that situation like a pro‼️She stood up for her patient‼️ Health insurance companies are evil ‼️

Meidas_Charise Lee

441,053 views • 1 year ago

“Researchers became content creators for big publishers.” We spoke to researchers in our community about the peer review industry. Here is what they had to say:

“Researchers became content creators for big publishers.” We spoke to researchers in our community about the peer review industry. Here is what they had to say:

ResearchHub

67,855 views • 1 year ago

Peer review of kwangsoo Strength: contribution 4% Weakness: lots, just lots. Wasting time for self satisfaction, Too many personal opinion and no consideration for staff 😂😂😂😂

Peer review of kwangsoo Strength: contribution 4% Weakness: lots, just lots. Wasting time for self satisfaction, Too many personal opinion and no consideration for staff 😂😂😂😂

nilam

19,448 views • 9 months ago

Illinois walk off field goal Tennessee went out sad , soft poorly coached team

Illinois walk off field goal Tennessee went out sad , soft poorly coached team

CFBTalkDaily

107,365 views • 9 months ago

Basic science is inspired by curiosity, accountable to evidence, and subject to peer review. Politics should have no role.

Basic science is inspired by curiosity, accountable to evidence, and subject to peer review. Politics should have no role.

Rep. Jake Auchincloss 🟧

187,384 views • 1 year ago

We taste tested Erik Karlsson's pregame meal. It went very poorly. #SDP #VIP #LetsGoPens

We taste tested Erik Karlsson's pregame meal. It went very poorly. #SDP #VIP #LetsGoPens

sdpn

37,297 views • 5 months ago