I'm reminded of how flawed I see the current peer review cycle.

A: Look at B.
C: Hey, A reported something.
B: Hey, A and C are reporting something. It must be true.
A: Wow, look at the supporting evidence from B and C.

And if B or C disagree with A? They won't report on it at all. Ergo, something becomes "not peer reviewed", which means people will simply disregard it.

I worked -for a while- at a research university and saw the dirty underbelly of peer reviewing. When people spout the phrase "peer reviewed" as it's some magical incantation automatically casts the aura of Holy Truth on something, I think less of them. Much less.

That's not to say that honest review of your by actual peers in your job isn't important. It is. But far too often it devolves into Confirmation Bias 101, where you exclude discussion of any contrary opinions, which then allows you to state that no contrary positions exist.

See also the f*cking press.