Isn't it also about how people are not trained to assess information? Factors like, who funded the research, What qualifications do the researchers have, did they follow the correct methodology, was it peer reviewed even when the research was done?
The internet, in general as I've argued elsewhere makes this even more difficult. Search results get more and more cluttered with sponsored links "trending" searches and adverts; "Buy Flat Earths near you." etc. I often heard people of my parent's generation say things like "It's in a book, they wouldn't let them print it if it wasn't true." We now have a generation with immediate access to information, good and bad a few keystrokes away and still with no training on assessing it.
A while back there was some emphasis on primary documents in history teaching but IMO there ought to be more training from an early age on the critical assessment of what you are looking at. That way people will be more likely to trust the evidence of others.
An anecdote from some terrible "management training" I was sent on in the 1980s one exercise was meant to encourage critical thinking and involved questions on a paragraph or two of text. People were mentioned by profession or relationship and it was designed to show that people thought of "The Surgeon" as a white male, etc.
The next day we were given a paper on some behavioral research and asked to comment on the findings. I was picked to talk first and stated that I didn't know who'd done this, when, what controls were used etc. I was very quickly told to shut up, I had been given the paper to comment on the findings, etc. and not question what the lecturer had given me. As I pointed out the "training" on critical thinking only applied to the exercise on critical thinking.