Inconvenient therefore unreliable

Very true- but sadly things are seldom so simple. The first major problem I’ll mention is “peer review.” Often, lay persons and even scientists are likely to take “peer review” as some sort of Devine certification. The fact is however- there isn’t a singular operational definition of peer review. 50 scientists can look at a paper and how it was reviewed and come to different conclusions as to wether or not it was “peer reviewed.” How many peers do you need? Who are your peers? Other scientists, scientists in your field, scientists doing the same type of research and able to fully understand the subject with experience? Each one of these offers its own potential issues like biases or knowledge gaps depending on how your study reflects on their own work. And of peers.... in a technical sense and to be blunt- if you’re a poor example of a scientist, 1 or 60 other poor scientists validating a thing doesn’t really matter if they are all just... not very good or bright.

The next problem lies on studies. You can find article after article and discussion after discussion on the unreliability of studies- mostly do to flaws in the scientific process and the procedures and operations as well as practical realities. Studies are usually paid work for scientists. They are ways to get grant money or salary, and publishing them helps build a name and recognition. Peer reviewers usually aren’t paid. Their “compensation” comes in the form of Recieving recognition for their review on a published study. The systems of tenure and funding and their own careers and earnings for scientists are tied together in a flawed system that encourages the “ambitious” scientist to get out and get their name published.