Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to the

Medical research findings are customarily not made public prior to their publication in a medical journal that has had them reviewed by a panel of experts in a process called peer review. It is claimed that this practice delays public access to potentially beneficial information that, in extreme instances, could save lives. Yet prepublication peer review is the only way to prevent erroneous and therefore potentially harmful information from reaching a public that is ill equipped to evaluate medical claims on its own. Therefore, waiting until a medical journal has published the research findings that have passed peer review is the price that must be paid to protect the public from making decisions based on possibly substandard research.

This is an assumption question, so we need to look at the conclusion and premises once again.

Conclusion: Medical journal peer review is only way people can avoid bad research.
Premises: Research subject to peer review before publication in journals, to be sure false research doesn't get out

(A) unless medical research findings are brought to peer review by a medical journal, peer review will not occur
ANSWER: When in doubt about the correct answer on an assumption question, try the NOT test. Take the opposite of this answer choice. "Peer Review can occur without being brought to peer review by a medical journal" [my paraphrase]. Uh-oh. Now we don't need to get peer review from a journal, so the journal itself is not the only way to protect the public.

(B) anyone who does not serve on medical review panel does not have the necessary knowledge and expertise to evaluate medical research finding
PROBLEM: This is tempting because the passage says something close to it. But we don't care if SOME people have the expertise outside of the panel itself. It's enough to know that some people don't. I can see that A LOT of you liked this answer choice. Be wary of picking something because the passage says something close to it. The passage says that SOME people don't have the necessary knowledge to evaluate research, not ALL of them. The "anyone" here goes WAY too far.

(C) the general public does not have access to the medical journals in which research findings are published
PROBLEM: Once the journals are released, the info has been peer reviewed. In reality, we NEED the public to have access to the journals.

(D) all medical research findings are subjected to prepublication peer review
PROBLEM: "All" is always a dangerous word, so be careful of it. Let's try the not test: "All medical research findings are NOT subjected to prepublication peer review." But couldn't that be because they aren't published at all? We don't need ALL medical research findings to get the review, just the stuff that might get out to the public.

(E) peer review panels are sometimes subject to political and professional pressures that can make their judgments less than impartial
PROBLEM: This hurts our argument, because we want people on the peer review panels to be protecting the public.