Peer reviewed study published in Science Journal turns out to be fraud.

[Angrboda]

Look how long it took to expose the Piltdown man fraud. Evolution was put into schools on the basis of that 'evidence', it was widely accepted on the basis of that 'evidence', and when it was later, silently, shown to be a fraud, no-one heard about it, and beliefs had already been established. The damage had been done.

(bold mine)

In November 1953, Time published evidence gathered variously by Kenneth Page Oakley, Sir Wilfrid Edward Le Gros Clark and Joseph Weiner proving that the Piltdown Man was a forgery and demonstrating that the fossil was a composite of three distinct species.

It was not retracted 'silently'.

From the outset, some scientists expressed skepticism about the Piltdown find (see above).

G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together." In the decades prior to its exposure as a forgery in 1953, scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by fossils found elsewhere. Skeptical scientists only increased in number as more fossils were found.

Skepticism occurred very early on and only increased as more finds failed to replicate the features of the Piltdown find.  Once again, science self-correcting through further studies.  You're just blowing hot air.