I actually agree that peer review far outweighs any negative aspects. It makes clever use of human nature to correct flaws in logic - the same as mathematics.
I was attempting to point out that those who accuse the process of being corrupt, seem to be the very ones trying to corrupt it - by any and all means, as listed in my post. Your (Steven's) detection methods are a great way to quickly ascertain the presence of pathological and pseudo science distinctions - and we should all use them.
Preservation of the quality of the peer review system is paramount.
My take on Medical Science is that corrective medicine, (ie: surgery, pharmacology, etc) and detection techniques are very sound and have improved human existence. So has mass vaccination. Medical treatments based on the causes of medical '
conditions', (other than proven, bacterially & virally caused
diseases), however, has a long way to go. Meta-analysis seems to frequently establish correlations but rarely, causation. Corruption has also been evident recently in a few cases impacting hundreds of thousands of patients (
Avandia might go this way, the whole cholesterol causing heart disease trail has cases of corruption embedded within it, also. These statements are however - cherry picking within a huge topic. We should all remain vigilant about these influences none-the-less, especially when it pertains to personal health).
Medical Science is one of the reasons I decided to head back into mainstream Physics and Astrophysics to see how it was fairing under the 'assault on science' ... but Medical Science is another topic (not much to do with Astro !)
Cheers & Rgds.