Peer review is like a spam filter. But just because something gets past your spam filter does not mean you should assume it's accurate, particularly when malici

Peer review is like a spam filter. But just because something gets past your spam filter does not mean you should assume it's accurate, particularly when malicious and fraudulent behavior is involved. What appears to have happened here is that a rapid peer-review gave the benefit of the doubt to a purported data source, and then the community rapidly discovered that the data source was not behaving honestly. All of this occurred in a matter of a few weeks, during a time when peer-review is almost certainly moving even faster than normal due to the urgency of the pandemic.