[InclinedPlane]

That's not the point. It's known that the system is imperfect.

The problem is that some people, especially those outside academia/research, have a different idea of what "passed peer review" means and a different idea of how the machinery of science works. Passing peer review doesn't mean that something has been proven as fact, it merely means (one hopes) that the authors did their due dilligence and put together research that seems solid. Put another way, it means that the reviewers don't think that the paper is obviously BS.

Peer review is just a spam filter.

The danger comes when people elevate passing through the spam filter with scientific proof.

Peer review is the start of the debate, not the end of it.