Peer review has never been a designation of fact, just "you must be this tall to enter the fighting pits."
Confusing peer review with fact is a public-perception problem, and a lot of that comes down to various antiscience groups whose work isn't even peer reviewed, let alone tested and challenged.
Until it's been reproduced and validated by a few outside - and hopefully disinterested - third parties, we shouldn't accept it as fact but as a theory that could be replaced.