Your choice to compare academic papers with blogs and snippet sites, specifically on the metric of quality, confounds me.

We only expect one of the two groups of information to inform the life-altering (and potentially -ending) recommendations made by trusted physicians.

If we're in agreement about a general endemic of misinformation, though, that makes more sense. It does leave me wondering whether we underestimate the error rate of our native cultures' sources, though, due to subsumed experience with targeted fraud protection. In other words, maybe we miss local folly because we already know where not to look?