How could junk science end up being implemented? Who oversees this stuff?
(I’d argue we shouldn’t, after all, anyone, including judges, can hire out for legal advice as required)
Many of them DID pass peer review. They had papers written on how well they work.
Obviously something in that peer review process has (yet again) led us to junk science.
What it's not is replication or in any way an indication that the original research was independent. The person reviewing your report has no way to know if your data is totally fabricated or not unless they try to replicate your study.