Can We Really Trust Medical “Peer-Reviewed” Research?

By Dr. John L. Reizer

Editor at

 reizer3In a recent article that I published here on, I discussed at length the possible dangers associated with human beings ingesting Fluoride. I believe that because of the common practice of water fluoridation in the United States and other locations throughout the world, many people suffer poor health due to Fluoride poisoning.

Predictably, a number of Internet trolls immediately jumped on my comment board and inundated the website with copy and paste posts that allegedly originated from “peer-reviewed” studies. The research plastered all over my website, of course, defended the mainstream public health mindset that Fluoride is a safe substance in appropriate concentrations, etc.

Every once in awhile, I purposely author and post one of these controversial articles on my website in an effort to measure the response by various trolls that are working for the establishment that wants to desperately remove credibility from websites like mine that might influence readers to see a different perspective about a subject than what the powers that be have authorized.

In almost every situation where I have released articles about the harmful effects associated with Fluoride, amalgam fillings, and especially vaccinations, the copy and pasted materials used to defend conventional paradigms appear scripted in nature. The written words used by the posters to attack my position are almost always the same.

For example, a few years ago I published a very similar article to the one I released here on June 14, 2015 about water Fluoridation. In the article that I published in 2012, a dentist wrote the following commentary:

“The great 16th Century alchemist, Paracelsus said, ‘Every substance is a poison and only the proper dose determines a poison from a cure.’

The poster in the 2012 article was trying to make the point that Fluoride is only a poison if it is administered to humans in inappropriate concentrations. If you believe that piece of advice I have some swamp land in the Everglades to sell you.

Then I received a comment regarding my article from June 14, 2015 from another dentist and he wrote practically the same thing:

“16th Century European doctor and alchemist, Paracelsus, stated it well: ‘All substances are poisons: there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison and a remedy.’”

I began thinking earlier today that these posters are working off the same damn script. The materials were pre-written along with the “peer-reviewed” research so that any dentist, doctor, or pretender could easily copy and paste them to a given website in order to defend the position in question being attacked. It is a brilliant strategy and demonstrates just how prepared the mainstream paradigm managers are in their efforts to keep members of society locked inside the box when it comes to certain subjects.

Regardless of the number of “peer-reviewed” research pieces being copy and pasted on this website or any other alternative news productions, it is important for readers to realize that a lot of scientific research is flawed and does not accurately represent the truth about the questions being examined.

There are tremendous amounts of bias in medical research due to the heavy influence that pharmaceutical companies have on institutions of higher learning and the federal government of the United States. This situation is fast becoming a serious problem for the scientific community as was reported in 2012 in an article published in the Washington Post.

According to another article written and published in The Atlantic magazine, “Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong.”

A publication put out by the University of California at Berkeley reported, “Almost 75% of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.” With statistics like these how can there ever be “peer-reviewed” research that is truly unbiased and representative of the truth regarding medicines and their effectiveness or ineffectiveness with regards to human subjects?

In the cases of Fluoride, Mercury, and vaccines, I have always found that it is probably better to rely on a little bit of common sense versus “peer-reviewed” research that often seems to defy the parameters of logic.

What do you think about this subject?



The health information that has been written on this website is not intended to replace a professional relationship between a patient and a health care specialist nor is it intended as medical advice. Readers are encouraged to make health care decisions based upon their own independent research!