Things that used to be on a blog.
Speaking of references and citations ...
May 11, 2012
I have had long experience with the opponents of real medicine
and I am always suspicious when they start citing the medical
literature. Almost universally, the citations fall into one or more
of the following categories:
- Ancient works, sometimes more than a century old, which
predate much of modern medicine
- Preliminary findings which have subsequently been shown to
be either erroneous or dead ends
- Research which refutes what the citer claims it supports
- Publication so far in the past that family doctors or
general practitioners are unlikely to have access to the
relevant journal issues to check the relevance of the work
- Letters to the editors of journals, rather than
- Papers in non-peer-reviewed journals edited by proponents of
- Newspaper articles
- Papers in foreign language publications which may not have
an English edition
- Outright fabrications, where sometimes the journal does not
- The use of non-standard abbreviations for journal names,
making it difficult to search library catalogues
- Research which is irrelevant to, or barely tangential upon,
the matter under discussion.
The intention is to impress people who might not have scientific
training, and even if they did, might not be able to locate the
cited research. Put another way, the intention is to deceive.