The review's fairly good, though I really think the "On seeking medical (or any) advice" section needs work. It's extremely long-winded, at some points talking about how to think about thinking, and is only casually tied to the comic being reviewed. The sudden shift in subject matter from "this shitty comic sucks" to "here's how you should evaluate health information, gentle reader" is gradual, but given this section is as long as the writing review it's noticeable. (The bit about fursuits also deviates into another subject but does so briefly enough that it doesn't have time to register.)
The problem is not with highlighting OJST's failures using health information. It's with the presentation. To put this in perspective, if you all deleted the two paragraph introduction and the five paragraphs following "YOU HAD ONE JOB OH JOY SEX TOY" you would only kill a single vague reference to the comic, and the [new] first and final paragraphs would still make sense in the new context. That's seven paragraphs of off-topic fluff. Out of thirteen.
It would be much better for the review to tie the entire attempt at education into criticism of the comic/authors. Insults can be logical and informative. Demonstrate the research failures, putting the information you want the reader to learn into the explanation of what the authors should have done while using their failure to do so as proof they suck at what they do. That's how you sneak facts into people's brains. Additionally, there shouldn't be two paragraphs leading into the section talking about us and our relationship to the reader. Endlessly inserting themselves into their fanbase is the primary justification for targeting web comic creators as part of the reviews, FFS. It's not that it goes meta, it's that it goes meta for far too long about Serious Business™ to the point it sounds like we overvalue our site's importance in the readers' collective day.
Lastly, I'd recommend renaming the section to something related to the comic so it reads less like an Official BWW PSA. Maybe "Research Review", "Safety Review", or "Educational Value Review".