[robot22]

Peer review is less effective then you imagine and a highly political process. These experts usually have a vested interest in a certain viewpoint or line of research. I agree extra scrutiny always helps, but scientific consensus does not guarantee truth.

[joe_the_user]

Well,

We should also look at the article under consideration. It seems to describe a molecule that might "cure" or ameliorate the effects of aging. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence but even more, there's a big "push" to have something like this published given that in there would be a tremendous amount of money interested in investing in a project that appears to have even a one percent chance of being that big.

[JoshTriplett]

It's certainly not a guarantee. However, it does tend to provide a non-zero improvement in signal-to-noise.

That process can and should be drastically improved, though.