Ok, well, by way of that example, in less than an hour or so, I was able to read Vingerhoets last 2 years of selected publications (via his personal website, http://www.advingerhoets.com/journal-articles/) and of particular note one of the most recent (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02699931.2016.11...) was actually rebutting/failing to reproduce the other study cited in this article by the Israeli group (http://faculty.washington.edu/beecher/Gelstein_et_al_2011.pd...) on the chemosignal theory.

It's not just about reading the sources. It the quality of the analysis and faithful representation of the sources. Don't you think that this major disagreement between two primary sources would have undermined his thesis (though captured the actual level of nuance/disagreement that exists in the research), or at signaled appropriate levels of uncertainty to the reader?

I still think a days worth of Googling (real, concerted, sustained effort) would leave anyone with a better understanding of the subject matter than reading this article. If someone wants to read an edgy pop-biology econometrical/anthrological opinion piece, that's another story.