This story has been submitted to Hacker News before with other URLs. It is important to note that the author himself was so dull (stupid) at doing peer review that he was sacked from his former position as editor of a highly speculative "scientific" journal.<p><a href="http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-there-a-role-for-speculative-journals-like-medical-hypotheses-in-the-scientific-literature/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/is-there-a-rol...</a><p><a href="http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100318/full/news.2010.132.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100318/full/news.2010.132.ht...</a><p><a href="http://journalology.blogspot.com/2010/05/medical-hypotheses-editor-is-sacked.html" rel="nofollow">http://journalology.blogspot.com/2010/05/medical-hypotheses-...</a><p><a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/medical-hypotheses-editor-out-ed.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/05/medical-hy...</a><p>Most of Charlton's critics are actually a lot more interesting and more willing to carefully investigate interesting ideas than he is. They just work harder at checking facts.