Judge’s Decision

The Judge’s 89 page decision was released on April 27, 2007. Also available as a 500KB pdf file.

Judge Sulan’s original decision is also available.

Sulan cites a Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal judge who said “Provided that the judge is satisfied that there is a field of expert knowledge to which recourse may be had, it is no objection to the reception of the evidence of an expert within that field that the views which he puts forward do not command general acceptance by other experts in the field.”

I find persuasive the line of reasoning adopted by the High Court in Adamcik that ultimately, the level of acceptance of a witness’ evidence should not be determinative of the question whether that witness is qualified to give expert evidence. This is so even where, as in Adamcik, the evidence is far-fetched or implausible. However, those considerations are highly relevant to the weight to be given to the evidence.

there was evidence during the course of this application that HIV is an extremely well understood virus, and that the issues raised by the applicant’s witnesses were not the subjects of legitimate scientific controversy.

Even if I were to conclude that Ms Papadopulos-Eleopulos had some expertise to express opinions about the methodology for determining whether HIV exists, I consider her opinions to be so out of line with the prevailing opinions and the prevailing evidence which supports the existence of the virus, that no jury could rely upon her opinions.

Reputable journals will only publish material which has been peer reviewed and from which it can be demonstrated that recognised scientific techniques have been followed. Opinions which question scientific conclusions, if adequately researched and peer reviewed, will be accepted for publication.

“Agreement between the reviewers as to whether manuscripts should be accepted, revised or rejected was not significantly greater than that expected by chance”

“At present there is little empirical evidence to support the use of editorial peer-review as a mechanism to ensure quality of biomedical research, despite its widespread use and costs. A large, well-funded programme of research on the effects of editorial peer-review is needed.”

“[Comments to a National Academy of Sciences panel on peer review include] ‘I have been on study sections and have seen members who clearly lacked expertise review proposals and grade proposals in a biased, or self-serving, or bad scientific manner’, ‘Under the present ‘culture’, which focuses on fault finding and amplification of minor errors and discouraging innovative research, nearly all NIH funding has gone into confirming, reconfirming, and reinventing what is already known, by individuals of very little insight or talent’, ‘I have seen the results of ideas being stolen. Who will be believed the experienced peer [who may have stolen the ideas] or the new investigator?’, ‘Unscientific grant review rhetoric never receives objective scrutiny’, ‘The AIDS and Related Research Study Section was composed of individuals with widely different areas of expertise…For the most part, we couldn’t understand the reviews written by other members of the panel.”

“Science bases its presumed authority in the world on the reliability and objectivity of the evidence that is produced. If the pronouncements of science are to be greeted with public confidence…it should be able to demonstrate that peer review, ‘one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice’, is a process that has been validated objectively as a reliable process for putting a stamp of approval on work that has been done. Peer review should also have been validated as a reliable method for making appropriate choices as to what work should be done. Yet when one looks for that evidence it is simply not there”

“The peer review system derives its power from the little known practice of governments to deputize their authority to distribute funds for research to committees of “experts”. These experts are academic researchers distinguished by outstanding contributions to the current establishment. They alone review the merits of research applications from their peers, and they have the right to elect each other to review committees. Outwardly, this “peer review system” appears to the unsuspecting government and taxpayer as the equivalent of a jury system – free of all conflicts of interest. But, in view of the many professional and commercial investments in and benefits from their expertise, and even of the rewards from their universities and institutions for the corresponding overheads and partnerships – all legal in the US since president Reagan – “peer reviewers” do not fund applications that challenge their own interests. Since “peer review” is protected by anonymity, does not allow the applicant personal representation or an independent representative, nor a say or even a veto in the selection of the “jury”, and does not allow an appeal, its powers to defend the orthodoxy are unlimited. The corporate equivalent of academia’s “peer review system” would be to give General Motors and Ford the authority to review and veto all innovations by less established carmakers competing for the consumer. Even the professional journals and the science writers of the public media comply with the interests of government- funded majorities because they depend on their monthly “scientific breakthroughs”, the lucrative advertisements from their companies, and the opinion of their subscribers. For example, an early precursor of this article was written in response to an open invitation from a pharmacology-journal over 3 years ago. But, after considerable pressure on the journal from anonymous “AIDS experts”, the editor requested a reduced article, which was neither accepted nor rejected. Instead, the editor simply dropped all further correspondence. Subsequently, the editor of a prestigious German-based science journal invited another precursor of this article 2 years ago, which received two favourable reviews in short order. But before the manuscript could be revised, the editor informed us that the publisher was concerned about losing subscribers if our paper were published and ceased all further correspondence. It is this passive resistance that can grind down even the most determined truth seeker.”

“Many readers seem to assume that articles published in peer-reviewed journals are scientifically sound, despite much evidence to the contrary. It is important, therefore, that misleading work be identified after publication…Recent draft recommendations from the World Association of Medical Editors say that “[e]ditors should promote self-correction in science and participate in efforts to improve the practice of scientific investigation by…publishing corrections, retractions, and letters critical or articles published in their own journal.”…Editors should give special attention to letters making criticism of methodology. They should do one of the following: satisfy themselves (perhaps by having the letter peer reviewed) that the criticisms are unfounded or unimportant, agree to publish the letter and invite the authors to respond, or invite a response from the authors and then decide whether to publish…Time limitation on correspondence denies readers the opportunity to draw attention to methodological deficiencies.…In effect, [in the 6 major medical journals used as examples] there is a statute of limitations by which authors of articles in these journals are immune to disclosure of methodological weaknesses once some arbitrary (short) period has elapsed, which cannot be right.”