Peer reviewed 
Yes. Like it or not, it's the best thing we've got. People who are experts in their fields studying data, coming up with theories and seeing how well those theories fit the facts and work in predicting the future or explaining some unknown or previously fully or partially unexplained event.
As in published only if the study coincide with the bought and paid for consensus?
No. Spoken like somebody who's never published an article in a peer-reviewed journal nor served as a reviewer or a referee. Sheesh...
Peer-review doesn't aim to suppress views that are inconsistent with those of some hypothetical consensus. It only serves to ensure that papers and studies published conform to accepted practices and meet the standards of publication.
How many drugs have been approved, through extensive peer-reviewed research and studies, only to later be found harming people before the consensus was changed.
That's how science works. We don't know everything. We use the best knowledge available to us to make the best decisions we can. But we aren't omniscient and ometimes our decisions turn out to be based on bad data. That isn't a bad thing. And that the consensus was, eventually, changed proves that your point about peer-reviews being a tool of suppression is bogus.
What's your counter-proposa? That we do nothing, hoping the knowledge will magically happen? That random, unsubstantiated claims be the basis by which we decide what to do in the future?
Sorry... that just won't work.
This happens again and again. I guess I'm just not the type of person who have blind trust in scientists who base their world view on "peer reviews".
Scientists don't ask for your blind trust. They lay their theories and their data out for you to examine yourself and make your own decisions. That's the cornerstone of science. It doesn't involve appeals to authority. Einstein was a vociferous opponent of quantum mechanics and even when he was at his zenith, papers on quantum mechanics were published all the time and eventually even he was convinced.
Whether you're
qualified to examine the data is another topic. But the data is there for you to examine and you don't need blind faith.
The studies on water fluoridation are out there. Please point to
one study that has evidence that water fluoridation has been correlated with any specific illness or malady except for fluorosis.
