The purpose of peer review is to check for methodological errors, not to replicate the experiment. With a few exceptions, it can't catch many categories of serious errors.

> higher retraction/unverified

Scientific consensus doesn't advance because a single new ground-breaking claim is made in a prestigious journal. It advances when enough other scientists have built on top of that work.

The current state of science is not 'bleeding edge stuff published in a journal last week'. That bleeding edge stuff might become part of scientific consensus in a month, or year or three, or five - when enough other people build on that work.

Anybody who actually does science understands this.

Unfortunately, people with poor media literacy who only read the headlines don't understand this, and assume that the whole process is all a crock.