> This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. This is the attitude that I'm trying to address. > This is an article in the NY Times, not a sci

> This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. This is the attitude that I'm trying to address. > This is an article in the NY Times, not a scientific paper. Look at this discussion on HN. How many of them give references. Is their writing any less clear for it? > The Cochrane Library is a very reliable resource, and I think it's valid to assume that the author is not simply making this up. Refer to my earlier comment about accuracy and context.