You are conflating problems. Nothing wrong with peer review. It's healthy to hold the burden of proof on those making the scientific claims. This is a key part of the questioning that is so important. Peer reviewing is as old as the scientific process itself. No scientists work in a vacuum. Example: the Royal Society has been around for 350+ years, bringing scientists and ideas together for debate and discussion. The problem, today, is when you can't find a half dozen scientists who are experts in the field and aren't overtly biased by their paycheck that they can't act without bias. Sinclair said it best: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." Examples: Most immunologists have long term relationships with the vaccine manufacturers. Most geologists have long term relationships with the natural resource producers. Most food scientists have long term relationships with the largest agricultural producers. Etc. Fix the money problem and you will fix the scientific community.