Just as an example, let's imagine to stand in front of a crossroad from which two streets branch off: one is characterized by a rigorous methodology, relying on bibliographic sources unanimously accredited by the global scientific community; the other one, instead, is diffusely permeated by self-reference.
The first one is mirrored in monumental biomedical bibliography archives and collections like PubMed, run by the prestigious National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, while the second one is reflected in the web, thus potentially reaching everyone, whether gifted or not with a "basic" scientific background.
Within such a challenging and insidious context, a major risk appears to be represented by the concrete possibility that "results" of doubtful or even null scientific value are prioritized by the general public over those generated by studies employing a methodology based upon reliable scientific grounds. This may lead, in turn, to undermine public trust in the scientific community, thereby giving rise to aberrant and extremely deleterious "no vax" - if not even "conspiracy" - theories as eloquently witnessed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Errare humanum est perseverare autem diabolicum and, no less important, Historia magistra vitae!