Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
Does peer review of medical/scientific papers mean much any more?
Now let’s add in politics, money, and status. What exactly does “peer review” mean? Which peers? In a clubby world, what are the chances of contrarian opposing viewpoints ( having any role in reviewing a paper for publication? Nil.
For example, do you think that John Ioannidis would have let the garbage science in the Bangladesh mask study be published on his watch? Almost certainly not, but who is ever going to ask a world-class thinker like him to review such a laughable study?
Taking this to the other side, what are the chances of an unpopular viewpoint getting past GroupThink peer review committees? About zero. How many studies opposing the orthodoxy get published... I’d guess few to none. And then, if you want to stay in the field, you had better toe the line and not come up with anything that challenges the orthodoxy.
Peer review sounds good, but in today’s world, but it’s an idea built on premises that today have no foundation.