Isn't the whole point of a "peer-reviewed journal" to submit items for scrutiny by fellow scientists? What's the harm? If it's faulty, other scientists will point out why.
The only reason to ask that the study to not be published is that the requestors are afraid the study is correct and can withstand scrutiny and critique.
If the authors of the study are willing to take the public risk of being proven wrong, let them go for it. That's how science is supposed to work.
Yeah, that's why the NEJM and Lancet retracted two articles during COVID. Peer review is not a flawless process, especially when those who disagree with you have been purged from the review boards. "Climate Science" has more than one way to work toward "consensus". One way is to come up with something that can withstand the strict scrutiny of the entire scientific community, the other is to marginalize and discredit scientists who disagree so they have no voice.
The "Frontline Doctors" suffered that fate for a time during COVID, but it turns out that the treatments they advocated worked, and the "vaccine" didn't. Nonetheless peer reviewed studies appeared to be contrary to that (if you didn't actually read the 'study' and see what had been done). Those studies showed that IVM and HCQ protocols were generally ineffective, or marginal, when incompletely administered during the later phases of the disease in the study group. That was taken to be that those protocols (with macrolide antibiotic--sometimes administered-- and zinc (NEVER administered in those studies)) were ineffective, and ballyhooed by the media and medical establishment as such.
The studies did not prove anything about using the complete protocol at the first onset of symptoms (a protocol intended to stop viral replication before the patient became admittable or critical), and the protocols were later shown to be effective at reducing hospitalization and death significantly, IF USED WHEN AND AS DIRECTED.
All the peer review process did was permit the publication of studies that showed that it didn't work when not used as intended. The media did the rest, to discredit regimens that could have saved thousands, if not millions of lives.
