Scientific journals aren't arbiters of Truth, and we don't need to be protected from bad opinions.
Think Sokal affair except this time lives are at stake.
It's not the job of scientific journals to worry about what irresponsible journalists might do with what they publish. Journals should just publish whatever they believe are interesting findings, and if science progresses society wins out in the end.
This is the comment you're praising? May as well just replace journals with blogs if that's the sentiment.
Nobody said that the journal should not have published because it is not interesting. You should instead focus on the given argument of "scientific standards" and the Scientific Method, the implicit rule-set of science (to be fair, you can question that too, but you didn't).
A Journal uses peer review to avoid publishing things that do not conform to a certain base level of scientific standard, e.g. comparing the wrong numbers/things, or ignoring causation vs. correlation, drawing the wrong conclusions, etc. A peer is supposed to flag such things and remind the authors of the flaws.
It's definitely the job of scientific journals to weed out papers that draw strong conclusions — e.g. 2 vaccine-caused deaths for every 3 COVID-caused deaths — based on bad data/assumptions — e.g. every death in a vaccinated individual is a vaccine-caused death. Especially when the subject is a matter of public health during a public health crisis.