Read the Headline-—no scientist would make such an outrageous claim without two lifetimes’ worth of corroborating data. She is proselytizing, plain and simple.
Sir, the headline was not written by Dr.Kraw. Let’s start with some rational analysis of the text. It’s a report by a journalist of a speech to a popular audience, not an article in a medical journal.
If you want to take Dr. Kraw to task, then get her professional articles and tear them apart professionally. But don’t base a professional judgment on a popular speech. She did “cite” studies but did so in a proper manner for a popular speech—asking her audience to trust her professional judgment. You would have to do exactly the same thing if you addressed a popular audience. If you were writing a medical journal article you would cite your sources professionally.
I’m sure you disagree with her reading of the studies. Fine. If you wish to take issue with her professionally, then go find her professional publications, where I’m sure she does cite studies, and tear them apart.
But what you are doing here is apples and oranges.
And that’s a rational assessment of your method of argument. You are doing exactly what she did in speaking to a popular audience, invoking your authority, speaking to a non-professinal audience (Free Republic), asking us to trust your authority in your skepticism about her interpretation of the data. But you assume that it’s obvious that she’s wrong because she did not cite studies the way one does in professional journals. Well, neither did you, but you expect us to believe you.