There is not good evidence that peer review improves quality and there is perhaps some to the contrary (many predatory journals are peer reviewed). The arxiv (unreviewed) is among the most reliable sources available.

Yeah, it's almost like science is better when the scientific method is applied to everything, instead of delegating validation to some third party based on credentials or authority or social status.

What do you suggest instead? Certainly not giving up I hope.

That is an ironic proviso given that the article clearly states

"The peer-reviewed articles don’t state anywhere the cases described are fictional."

Peer review by peers who are trained by non-replicable science is not helpful...

I think it's a bit different considering the goal was a teaching tool of well recognised conditions

>all or almost all were cases of very well recognized conditions [...] where a single case report would not generate any interest or ever be cited.

Independently replicated. Reviewed says pretty much nothing.

Peer review is a sniff test. It cannot guarantee that the results are correct and the conclusions are right. It is just designed to limit some kinds of errors. Replication is important.

Case studies can't be replicated. They aren't experiments.

you can find multiple cases that are comparable. one case study is an anecdote. multiple studies for the same kind of case...

Tough to replicate an isolated case study?

Especially if they are made up.