‘It is ridiculous to think covid-19 could have originated in a lab’
‘Covid-19 spreads through touching surfaces’
‘Hydroxychloroquine cures covid-19’
‘Hydroxychloroquine does not cure covid-19’
‘Any opinions that go against this popular scientific stance are dangerous and should be blocked’
How would you solve this problem?
It's a sign that something might well hold up, but it's not definitive. I think people know this about their own field, and then immediately forget it when dealing with another field.
This isn't self-evident. In fact, it's conceivable that peer review could actually lower the quality of published research by delaying paradigm shifting work from seeing the light of day.
In fact, it took people about one day from publication to start pointing them out with proof - and these people were (supposedly) less qualified than the peer reviewers.
It is true that, with properly faked data, a reviewer cannot be expected to catch it. Nor can p-hacking generally be discovered from an incomplete description.
But quite a bit of faked and even p-hacked data is less-than-competently done in a way that a reviewer can and should be able to catch;
And observational data or meta-study are much easier to verify, since no experiment was done by the researcher either.
Have there been any peer-reviewed studies that unambiguously admit the possibility that Covid-19 may have originated in a lab? Although I think it's something that needs serious consideration, the alleged lack of Medical Reliable Sources (basically medical journal articles) is being used aggressively by a small group of editors on Wikipedia to enforce the line that a lab leak is "conspiracy theory".