An essential skill for evaluation of wellness claims is critical reading. The Farnum Street article,[ Good Science, Bad Science, Pseudoscience: How to Tell the Difference](https://fs.blog/2020/01/good-science-bad-science/), nicely summarizes the things you should be aware of when reading scientific information. I agree with the majority of the article, but there is one point I can't accept. True innovators often have problems publishing their work. Why? Because peer review is strongly biased against radical new ideas. Peer review relies on experts invested in present day science. "Experts" are often resistant to radically new ideas, especially those ideas that challenge a lifetime of work. The bias against radical ideas inhibits the speed of scientific discovery and its impact on mankind. A striking example of bias against a radical new idea is the discovery of [the role of H. pylori's in the development of gastric ulcers](https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mystery). The scientist, [Barry Marshal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Marshall), ultimately shared the [Nobel Prize in Medicine](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2005/7693-the-nobel-prize-in-physiology-or-medicine-2005-2005-6/) for his work. Microbiome research, especially early on, faced this particular bias. It will take some time for the scientific evidence to catch up with the preliminary findings. I wrote more about the peer review process in my blog entry [THOUGHTS ON OPEN ACCESS AND TRADITIONAL PUBLICATION](http://jeffreytaekman.com/blog/2016/1/10/thoughts-on-open-access-and-traditional-publication).