The plagiarism in the introduction was mentioned first, then the other errors you mention.
What I found telling was this:
"“Although science trends towards self-correction, something is clearly broken in a system that can allow a study as full of problems as the Elgazzar paper to run unchallenged for seven months,” he said.
“Thousands of highly educated scientists, doctors, pharmacists, and at least four major medicines regulators missed a fraud so apparent that it might as well have come with a flashing neon sign. That this all happened amid an ongoing global health crisis of epic proportions is all the more terrifying.”"
Peer review. And then a lone heroic Master's student finds all these errors.
Because SCIENCE!™
Like I told some other pro-jab troll, I don't trust peer review, the process is busted.
Or, more precisely, just because someone has a semi-defined process, and slaps the label Peer-Reviewed (angel chorus) on it, doesn't mean what they're doing really catches pertinent or systematic errors, or eliminates groupthink.
True, and peer review isn't really designed to catch outright frau, which seems to be the case here. There's a presumption of good faith from one's peers and the process is designed to validate the authors' stated protocols and methodologies, not root out knowing deception.
When dealing with honest people peer review is still a valuable tool.