We think it's important because the entire academic profession claims peer review as the basis for checks and balances on their fields of study. If peer review is a circle jerk, the academics need to stop committing fraud by claiming peer review is anything other than a old-boys-club rubber stamp.

2 weeks of "peer review" after it was published raised these questions

1. The study had a higher number of deaths than the known death count in austrailia (scientific data usually lags far behind real-world, unredacted data)
2. The study claimed invitermicin did a better job, yet at the time of the study, invitermicin wasn't a suggested remedy and is unlikely to have been used off-label in so many cases (they were still pushing people to ECMO or ventalators)
3. the study claimed to have access to tens of thousands of hospital records (maybe but hospitals don't just chuck data at every startup company who asks - later a reporter called every single hospital in austrialia, none of which knew about a partnership with that company - you think at least one of them would give an answer like "our partners go though appropriate vetting" but every single one flat ut denied a relationship)
4. The company says it was the hospital's job to redact data so data problems are the hospital's fault (hospitals would never do this, you want the data, you clean it up and pass it though board review)

These are major questions came by medical professional "peers" within days that actual "peer review" could have at least asked

2 weeks of "peer review" after it was published raised these questions

1. The study had a higher number of deaths than the known death count in austrailia (scientific data usually lags far behind real-world, unredacted data)
2. The study claimed invitermicin did a better job, yet at the time of the study, invitermicin wasn't a suggested remedy and is unlikely to have been used off-label in so many cases (they were still pushing people to ECMO or ventalators)
3. the study claimed to have access to tens of thousands of hospital records (maybe but hospitals don't just chuck data at every startup company who asks - later a reporter called every single hospital in austrialia, none of which knew about a partnership with that company - you think at least one of them would give an answer like "our partners go though appropriate vetting" but every single one flat ut denied a relationship)
4. The company says it was the hospital's job to redact data so data problems are the hospital's fault (hospitals would never do this, you want the data, you clean it up and pass it though board review)

These are major questions came by medical professional "peers" within days that actual "peer review" could have at least asked