I could claim anything and set it up as a Proposition or Theorem as long as it passes the smell test.
No referee or editor has ever checked my proofs

I could claim anything and set it up as a Proposition or Theorem as long as it passes the smell test.
As an empiricist I am in the same situation. I could claim anything and set it up as ** or ***, as long as it passes the smell test. No referee or editor has ever replicated my regression tables.

I read a paper by a fairly big name that introduced a model requiring the use of "negative weights". He then criticized Stata's limited capabilities for not allowing negative weights and introduced his own code to get around this.
The problem is that once you have negative weights, the estimator is not solving a minimization problem, you get a saddle point. In the text there was a figleaf of a footnote to say "assume the parameter space is compact so a minimum is assured". But the actual code produced the mindless saddle point result.
This I must say was the point at which I lost nearly all my confidence in the peer review process. I have faced critical problems like that and sometimes major errors require large chunks of the paper to be rewritten. But this is very costly and apparently a poor strategy.

Proposition: Every single one of OP's proofs are wrong.
Proof:
Referees and editor will only ever report having checked a proof if the check revealed the proof was wrong. Assume towards a contradiction that OP had published a single correct proof. In that case, the absence of a referee having reported this proof does not imply that no referee ever checked said proof.
Therefore, the only way OP can be certain that no referee ever checked any of his/her proofs is if every single one of them is incorrect.

Proposition: Every single one of OP's proofs are wrong.
Proof:
Referees and editor will only ever report having checked a proof if the check revealed the proof was wrong. Assume towards a contradiction that OP had published a single correct proof. In that case, the absence of a referee having reported this proof does not imply that no referee ever checked said proof.
Therefore, the only way OP can be certain that no referee ever checked any of his/her proofs is if every single one of them is incorrect.Well done. QED.

People on this board rant sbout secret data. They should also rant about secret theorems nobody has checked
secret data = money and time. Therefore, They should share their secret data to others for free. So good!
Are you a retard? In which way does the post imply anything about sharing secret data for free?