Well, maybe it is peer review when drug company "peers" research their own products, then pay off doctors to sign off on the "results" which are then submitted.
And of course they are the first ones to jump up and down in immaculate white robes of life and death decisional authority and power and "prestige" and cry "quackery" when some treatment is out there that isn't patentable by bigdruggedco nor expensive compared to their bloated profit "peer reviewed" products.
And there you see just one of many reasons why healthcare is so expensive now. Fixing this phony alleged "scientific" mess would be along the lines of "constructive healthcare reform".
And it wouldn't cost that much either, not in the long run, compared to what it would save and how many more people would actually be helped, rather than having symptoms masked with expensive patented magic pills and potions and secret "proprietary" elixirs....
It's *good* to be a skeptic, but it is rather foolish to instantly believe and defend everything the big profit centers claim is "good for you" as well, and instantly diss any alternatives "just because".
When there are billions, hundreds of billions really, in profits at stake (or massive political power gains or academic "prestige" based around alleged "scientific research and review and consensus"), integrity gets abandoned rather quickly in some quarters, and no profession or discipline is "immune" to this ongoing disease.
Higher IQ and developed academic and technical skills do not automagically impart higher integrity, although it can function to just create smarter crooks...
That's why I would support something like "open source medicine" as a replacement for what we have now (closed source wall street brand medicine) as just one of the better and cheaper ideas to get more affordable and more *effective* healthcare out there.