Have you personally reviewed a non-zero number of papers? What is this statement based on? For a thread ostensibly about science, the comments are disappointingly lacking in evidence and heavy on vibes.

Maybe people could learn about what peer review is before posting their strong feelings about it? The purpose certainly isn't to replicate people's experiments, that happens after publication and not by referees. One of a reviewer's duties is to look at whether the study could be replicated given the included information. That is a very different thing.

Also, just because something has made it past peer review also doesn't mean it isn't controversial in the field.