Was that in a reputable journal or what?
There are, of course, the families of predatory journals, often named adjacent to reputable ones, and which exist in part to extract value from naive or underperforming academics; serve as advertising; one can say "it's published research!!"; etc.
Knowledge isn't some static thing, it is an ongoing process; one must never let their guard down, always be critical of who, what, where, etc. Knowledge decays over time, not just because our brains are made of meat, but because the circumstances of those facts also changes over time. Physical laws maybe not so much, but we hold a hell of a lot more facts about human relationships, and things we've created, than we do immutable laws of the universe. Facts like interpersonal relationships, literature and mythology, the myriad things we've created and interconnected, etc.
Meanwhile, the circle of reputable journals contains, and is well cited by, effective and insightful research (or at least, it is from time to time, depending on how insightful you might consider the more abundant but incremental sort of reports; but that's still technically scientific progress). The circle of irreputable journals might be well cited among themselves*, but not by the other group.
*I don't know that I've heard about this particular aspect before, come to think of it. Further reading is suggested.
You see the same patterns of relationships and information flows in public media, as misinformation is created and spread among conservative and lazy publishers, and only belatedly corrected by those that care to. Being aware of these patterns is a mandatory part of critical thinking, especially these days. Unfortunately, especially these days, it is also a big tax having to pore over so much material to find where it comes from and what it's really saying. (Case in point, see China's recent explosion of misinformation on Twitter.)
[I would normally refrain from calling out sources such as "conservative" or "China", but in these cases there is objective research on the matter, so it feels appropriate to call them out as such.]
So, it is ultimately up to the individual to collect and synthesize information into a web of trust; especially these days with our traditional trust networks under attack. There will always and necessarily be an undercurrent of poor quality or factually-wrong information, and we must all work to push it away, while better collecting, curating and cultivating the good stuff.
Tim