Most relevant in this section: I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WHO ONLY QUOTES FROM PUBMED!!
There is a development that concerns me and botheres !!:
I DON'T TRUST ANYBODY WHO ONLY QUOTES FROM PUBMED!!
(that seems to be the new fashion; especially if it is an extract seeing that mostly means you don't have acces to PUBMED; also most don't know what they are talking about and usually parrot somebody are even worse COPY the whole **** article to make them look smart).
It also is unfair seeing most people don't understand it or just skim it (Hell knows I do since it mostly contains bullsh*t, irrelevant numbers and like I said is only an extract meaning the person doesn't have authorisation to use PubMed).
So summarized:
1) Most of them actually don't have acces to Pubmed
2) Most of them don't know what they are talking about!
3) Not fair to people who can't understand it
4) Maybe its relevant --> But people still are likely to skim it missing important points
5) numbers don't mean anything unless the Diagrams/statistics are included (I really love the people who foolishly just quote the N=100, 8 positive etc.
in their articles since they just unmasked themselves!! )
6) Parotting
7) Invite for people to steal other peoples ideas/articles
8) Makes threads unnecessary long and boring...
Do what I do:
1) Explain the whole thing in simple terms (so it reaches the majority)
2) You can criticise the articles or say what you doubt
3) Explain how it is relevant to common thought and supplements the popular ideas or actually contradicts them
(like when I said that thing about taking proteins right after work-out unless using insuline is a bad idea; while it is the most followed pattern for years in
Working-Out routines).
4) Put the sources (Not the whole **** articles!!) with it
5) Optionally: Put that anybody who needs the whole article can contact you!
Greets
Kingofmasters