Probably, but not definitely. The only thing preventing you from understanding the sources yourself is some effort. It's not as hard as it is sometimes imagined.
One problem with that is that any individual study should be read in the context of other published literature, if you want to form an informed opinion. The only alternative is authority - either looking at the journal where it was published, the authority of the authors, or the authority of someone who recommended the paper.
Otherwise, it's easy to find plausible-sounding papers that have failed to reproduce in subsequent studies, that use too low samples compared to similar studies with different conclusions, that were later retracted etc.
Oh, they will be, but in the opposite way to what GP seems to want. That is, I'd look at the sources as further sources of authority :). E.g. a bunch of papers from multiple teams, with some published by high-profile journals or authored by well-known researchers, indicates it's relatively safe to trust their conclusions. A bunch of papers from the same few people who seem to want to push their pet theory indicates low trustworthiness and need for independent verification.
Unless you've studied the domain in question in depth, it's not like you could use the citations in any other way. Trust, as a heuristic, is fundamental to advanced research as much as it is for everything else in society.
