In the old days how it worked (with my experience in Mathematics as an author and evaluator)

1) someone submits a synopsis,
2) synopsis is evaluated by the editing board and it either is rejected (ends there- but a new synopsis can be re-submitted if the author wants...) or accepted
3) if accepted the article is asked for and reviewed by the editing board where it can be rejected, asked for some additions/changes or move to the next step
4) a few copies are made and some experts on the exact matter are chosen and sent a copy (this step was known as pre-release)
5) the peers reviewing can accept as is ask for some modifications/clarifications or accept as is
6) it got published in the journal if it passed all of the above.


These days things have changed a bit the publication no longer (as it had to be done once upon a time) have someone type out a copy for each reviewer. Most do what is called pre-publishing, they make the article available for peers to review on the net and so it ends up with more eyes on it. Unfortunately with our and the medias constant need to be on top of things (especially on Covid back in the day) that pre-publishing ends up being taken as perr reviewed what that stage has not happened yet.

But even if something is peer reviewed there is still room for there being mistakes, deception over drawn conclusions that are not actually supported by the author that are not picked up by the peers doing the review and they are only pick-up later..... and so when that is found out by reputable publications they add an erratum so people know that there was something wrong with it (no matter how minor or major) that error is.

The point is the reason you can point that the one (out of many) research studies/papers that show it has no effect was flawed was because those publications pointed it out after the pre-publishing went mainstream and posted erratum about it

but that is the issue with normal  web sites, they do not. For example you linked to [Link: xlcountry.com]

and they were nice enough to link to the CDC. I did not and don't feel like getting into it but did you click on the CDC link?

it reads at the top of the article

Please note: This report has been corrected. An erratum has been published.

I don't blame the radio station or the guy that wrote it, when he wrote the article the error was not noticed and not corrected yet by the CDC, and like anything else  the author is not constantly re-visiting to make sure what was written in October 2020 still stands as he posted it and find the new article that is corrected.