Free Energy Challenge: Quest to Meet Academic
Protocol 3: Peer Review System
• ■ Reduced chance for grant/promo2on if contradicts above root assump2ons
even though unrelated to research theme, it is par$cularly important to
endorse man made exclusive catastrophic CO2 global warming no ma9er
what the research is(this automa2cally cuts out funding from good por2on of
torsion field/electric weather influence, cosmic ray - troposphere rela2on,
general global climate research area), Differs in non-western na$ons(Russia,
Brazil+, eg China’s Montagnier funding), or military or space agency in
West(seems usually classified)
• • Self-endorsed circular logic; underfunded experimental research success &
theory, even validated by many "fringe groups" & non mainstream journal
peer reviews, is blocked from mainstream peer review without Western
corporate-NGO/media/gov’ back up, but mainstream rejects it, reasoning “it
lacks peer review”,
• • This combines with occasional selec2ve failure only peer reviews when
claims are “proven false” & claimers lose funding/job, by only base d on
replica/on failures & ignored all successes(Mi Schiff+). This stops most
researches, but even failure process itself is dubious; eg. Firmly alleged data
change to block LENR funding(Mallove+)
192
linkedin.com/in/newnatureparadigm -Ben Rusuisiak: Specialty Cleantech Analysis, Vancouver, Canada