I think this article is interesting because it discusses how inaccurate scientific conclusions can be spread when researchers cite past reports without bothering to check their conclusions. I'll bet that's why there is so much inaccurate nutritional information out there. How many times have you heard "There are numerous studies proving that..."

Here's an example from the article:

"To give a more concrete example of how this happens. I write a paper which states that ‘the relation of blood pressure to risk of death is continuous graded and strong.’ Someone else comes along and quotes that paper, without bothering to look at the methodology or results. So now I have two papers making the same statement.

Then, along comes researcher B, who is looking for papers on blood pressure and mortality. He sees two papers with the same self-reinforcing statement on it, and quotes them. Now I have three papers making the same statement. How long before there are one hundred, two hundred, a thousand papers?"

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/kendrick/2003_jan16.html

I had posted this on another board, and someone replied that in his field of law enforcment/intelligence this practice is called "investigative incest". I think that's a great expression to describe this.

I have a couple of other areas of interest that Term is very applicable too!
Thank you!
Nedra

By the way, the basis of Part I of that article is quite interesting: he proposes that high blood pressure can't cause constricted arteries. Constricted arteries (artherosclerosis) cause hypertension. Hypertension is a natural symptom of constricted blood flow. Duh! Makes perfect sense when he says it.