"We know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong." -- Richard Horton
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue." -- Richard Horton
When a man who runs a scientific journal estimates that maybe half of what he publishes "may simply be untrue", it seems reasonable to conclude that maybe that journal isn't (or shouldn't be) a top journal. You could also ask how he allowed that situation to develop, because that would be a worse track record than even the dodgiest of newspapers.
In case you think he's really far out on that self-judgement:
"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine." -- Marcia Angell
By the way, Horton's justification for why leaving the WHO would be bad was nothing to do with science. He said:
"President Trump’s decision to defund WHO is simply this—a crime against humanity. Every scientist, every health worker, every citizen must resist and rebel against this appalling betrayal of global solidarity."
Betraying global solidarity is not a part of the scientific process, it's a political concept.
A pandemic by definition is a global problem.
The man did enough that was actually objectionable, people shouldn't feel a need to make up silly stuff.