It's not necessarily a new phenomena that the published medical information is mostly bullshit.
Dr Marcia Angell is a member of the faculty of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and a former Editor in Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine.
In Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption in 2009, over a decade ago, she writes:
It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.
Richard Horton, current editor-in-chief of The Lancet, adds:
The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
John Ioannidis raised the replication crisis way back in 2005:
In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.
It's not that medical papers are just another affected category. They are the main offender!