Ann: Half Year Accounts, page-50

"peer reviewed": for example, when you make me a G & T and I give you feedback. If I ask for a second you know your methodology has been sound.

Or alternatively ... An essential aspect of the scientific process" is the thorough examination of manuscripts by other scientists. They read the article critically and then either suggest that it is accepted, rejected, or—most frequently—revised and improved before it is published. In fact, most scientists will not consider a scientific pronouncement as valid unless it has been approved by this anonymous process, known as peer review. Without such an external seal of approval, they would consider any results presented as preliminary, potentially flawed and generally of the same self-serving status as a press release.

Sorry I forgot to put the source, it was from The Australian (28th March 2017) https://www.theaustralian.com.au/hi...e/news-story/53eabf07ae9ac76393515b8408f0a0b5

I can't help but speculate (all fabricated of course) but as an Australian researcher where funding is impossible to find at the best of times, talking to a company about full scale trials , would it not perhaps be resourceful to I quote "cho[.]se endpoints that demonstrate real, if not clinically relevant, results" so we could better (while funding our department for the next 1/4, 6 months, year) research a project to properly determine if they were actually clinically relevant results by actually performing research on a much more accurate full scale model?

As the article suggests I don't think it's wrong to question whether someone may win (_{perhaps more - research institution, management, shareholders ... well at the time of the announcement anyway, the sp has fallen away to nearly 52 week lows since}) if a particular result albeit honest at that end-point, was obtained? Do you @fooca?