That is to be expected with cutting edge research. Studies get retracted all the time. The vetting process is not perfect and never can be. Especially when there are bad actors gaming the system.
You could attack Lancet and Elsevier in general on other grounds. But this in my opinion is not one of them.
That is the “beauty” of that book. It is self-contradictory. It can and has been used to justify anything. Almost everyone reads just the bits they like and ignore the rest. Taken as a whole it is on par for what you would expect from 2 millennia old shepherds. Not some divinely inspired work of absolute truth.
Tom Scott did a video about this a while ago.
Here’s a novel idea. Don’t use these exploitative services.