“...it’s from the National Institute of Health, as shown in the title.”
It’s from a German Journal called Small.
It’s from a university in Turkey and describes some computer modeling they ran and some cell culture experiments.
PMD makes them available, it’s not from them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
newfreep didn’t reference the authors; they criticized the quality/reputation of the website (i.e., dismissively writing ‘tech blog’). I replied that the website belongs to the National Institute of Health.
Care to waste any more of our time?
Lol.
Pubmed central makes articles available. It’s not from them any more than a book is written by a library.
God bless you brother.
We will pray for you.
“ newfreep didn’t reference the authors; they criticized the quality/reputation of the website (i.e., dismissively writing ‘tech blog’). I replied that the website belongs to the National Institute of Health.”
It is called a Genetic Fallacy.
One commits the GnF when advocating for a conclusion based solely on origin. This is a fallacy of relevance—irrelevance, really—because the origin of a claim may be irrelevant to its truth-value. That is to say, providing an account of the genesis of a claim, its history or origin, may be informative and helpful; however, it need not determine the truth-value of the claim. Therefore, when one draws a conclusion regarding the truth-value of a claim based solely on the origin of the claim, then one may have committed the GnF.