It doesn't make sense to start out with the conclusion ("The article needs to be about the inaccuracy of peer answers") and only search for facts that support your conclusion. If you want to evaluate the accuracy of medical information you have to consider both sides of the argument.
Like all opinion, the facts behind the opinion are the key. I would be much more likely to believe a medical professional that has reviewed the symptoms and all of the test results for their patient than a doctor I met at a cocktail party. He/she might be the best at their trade but any kind of troubleshooting requires putting together a series of facts. It's knowing and understanding that set of facts that makes the attending physician's opinion more valuable than a web site or the guy with the martini glass in his hand.
http://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/evaluating_health_information/index.html
