Pubmed has limitations - it includes articles as well as research - these could be something like an editorial or opinion article. It is everything - good, bad and indifferent that is published in the journals. ALso the articles are written for medics and scientists and are often difficult for the untrained person to understand. A third issue is that one article rarely equates to "fact" - you might read it without knowing that there are half a dozen studies that contradict it's findings.
A much more useful site is:
http://www.cochrane.org/
This publishes independent review articles on various health topics. Scientists give their time to look at the well conducted research on a topic (excluding the badly done research) and determine whether any clear conclusions emerge. They are independent reviews of the evidence (and not just reviews, which can be biased)
The Internet is absolutely awash with really, really bad information about health. Much of it is trying to sell , snake oil, unregulated drugs or unproven supplements and remedies. Not to mention the unproven treatments for cancer.
"Clinics" in distant places that publicise expensive treatments are often bad news. Anyone in a desperate position should get a number of medical opinions before travelling long distances for this purpose. The exception might be properly conducted, ethical, clinical trials. Again, checking with some qualified people should help people to determine whether these trials are reputable. And of course a clinical trial means that the treatment is not yet proven to be useful.
Clinical trials should not charge for participation.