Devils advocate here but If you extrapolate this argument to 1600s medical advice then surely you'd be correct and I think for good reason.

I'm not sure what exactly you're suggesting (if anything).

It just means that in a span of a few weeks the evidence itself (what we know and how we understand it) can contradict itself. So basically if you say that’s okay, it’s the authoritative source, that’s fine, but it means other people might not be authoritative but may be right. So the question isn’t so much why give one preeminence based on past performance but rather why censor others who might have a case to be made?