It's not perfect, but it's a valid protocol, and if followed strictly, it ensures good scientific work. The points you raised are definitely valid, and I agree with them—this is where my criticism comes in regarding the lack of people available to evaluate quality published work. Today, there are too few peer reviewers, which is why it takes so long to publish a reviewed paper. I don't necessarily see this as a problem if those who do review are known for fairness and objective evaluations. But this highlights the need for more people to review papers, to help ensure the quality of the journals that publish them.

In summary, I partially agree with the points you raised. This isn't a problem with the protocol itself, but with us—not knowing how to properly assess good research. Especially the major news outlets, which do a poor job of communicating scientific news. They often don't even do the bare minimum, like reading the actual paper and verifying whether all the peer review steps, data, and methodologies were published before releasing sensationalist headlines.