It doesn't. The question peer review, or refereeing asks is whether an article is fit to be published, based on a quick reading of a paper, essentially, "will we embarrass ourselves if we release this?" Peer review most definitely does not prove a paper correct or beyond criticism. These idiots genuinely imagine that science progresses one paper at a time, and peer review is a means of proving those papers correct. Used in the tweet above, it is just a way of derailing discussion by introducing a red herring and demanding it be refuted.

It's actually the act of standing on a peer and looking at the cargo including the vaccines boxes and going, yeah that's good stuff I approve and that is the amount of peer review the vaccine got.

To me the scientific method should include a bonus step of “repitition” meaning that the results are replicable. But I don’t think that’s what peer review actually is in the real world.

Sometimes people will be arguing some scientific point to me and say “you can prove x for yourself!” When the only way I could prove whatever it is would be to have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of expensive and sensitive equipment. That’s not repeatable or observable in my mind. I’m not saying I have to be able to see or test everything in order to believe it, but I can’t think of many things worth believing in that I can’t actually observe in some way.