Yes, these are click bait crap titles that need to change. I've gone ahead and edited these three titles to the suggestions you made in your question.
Skeptics isn't a tabloid seeking cheap clicks. We're a Q and A site that strives to bring a higher level of criticism to notable claims. Our titles should reflect that. Our titles should be descriptive, such that reading them should give you a clear idea on what the question actually is without having to click through. I understand that some topics may be too complicated or very difficult to make a descriptive title, but our best effort clearly would never look like any of the three that you've made as examples. I suggest that all users make descriptive titles, and edit non-descriptive titles when they are found.
I would like to take this opportunity to steer the conversation in another direction. I think we need a tighter scope on allowing quote verification questions in the first place. A quote by Paul Offit? Who cares. Plenty of intelligent people have said dumb things after they've had their moment of greatness (not that Paul Offit is a household name or that this particular quote is dumb). Same for Martin Schulz, a random politician talking politics. Don't get me started on Donald Trump questions. They've toned down in recent months, but during the 2016 election Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump questions were constantly asked with only one apparent purpose: to bring publicity to some dumb thing one of them said. This Trump question is no exception.
One of the hallmarks of appropriate skepticism is divorcing the source from the claim. Who said it is usually far less important than the substance of the claim itself. Paul Offit may or may not have said X about aluminum in the body. It's far more useful to know the veracity of that claim itself. Same with Schultz's quote, it's more useful to know the EU parliament's values.
There is one exception to quote verification: the quote is inherently surprising coming from that person. Case in point, that Schulz would criticize the EU in that way is surprising because he was EU parliamentary president at the time. The others are not surprising. If Paul Offit said vaccines are junk, that would be very surprising. If he gives a medical opinion on a very technical and still not understood bodily process, that's not very surprising. That Trump would say something about abortion and possibly misspeak is also not surprising.
In other words, the Offit and Trump quotes aren't even notable, and I favor that we close the questions or edit them to be about the claims themselves. Offit's claim on Aluminum would probably work on this site. Trump's certainly would not work here. Schulz's quote is surprising coming from him, so it's notable as is, but the title still needs a change.