Classical peer review: an empty gun?

I will leave it to those who are interested in such things, particularly as they pertain to 9/11 Truth, to examine this article and decide what ramifications it might have, if any.

Although the article deals specifically with medicine, it can be applied to any and all peer review processes, situations, and scenarios.

Interesting -- from the article

The author writes:
"I recently debated peer review in front of around 80 people from the Association of Learned and Scholarly Publishers. Unsurprisingly, I was arguing against peer review. Nobody agreed with my position before my talk - and nobody agreed with me afterwards. These editors and publishers were 100% in favour of peer review. The majority of scientists are also strongly in favour of peer review, although it is less than 100%."

I would agree that peer review serves a purpose in serving as a filter. As the author mentions, the number of times a reviewed paper is CITED following publication is a good measure of its impact. It would be interesting to have those numbers for the handful of peer-reviewed papers that the 9/11 truth-seeking community has to its credit.