Pierpont & Laurie discuss Wind Turbine Syndrome (Cape Cod, Mass.)
Jun 21, 2011
Editor’s note: In her book, “Wind Turbine Syndrome,” Pierpont ended her discussion of peer review with the following:
In the case of this book, a variety of scientists and physicians, all professors at medical schools or university departments of biology, read and commented on the manuscript and recommended it as an important contribution to knowledge and conforming to the canons of clinical and scientific research. Moreover, they did in fact suggest revisions, even substantial revisions and additions, all of which I made. Some gave me written reports to include in the book itself. See “Referee Reports.” Others offered to review the book after it was published.
That said, the litmus test of scientific validity is not peer review, which, after all, is not infallible, as the history of science amply demonstrates. Peer review is an important first step in judging scientific or scholarly merit. Still, the ultimate test is whether other scientists can follow the author’s research protocol and get the same results, or if different lines of research point to the same conclusions.
That, of course, remains to be seen with this report.
I am happy to report that confirmation no longer “remains to be seen.” Dr. Sarah Laurie’s research in Australia is daily confirming Pierpont’s case for Wind Turbine Syndrome. (Click here for a PDF of Dr. Laurie’s Cape Cod PowerPoint presentation.)