1 2 3 4 5 Diethelm, Pascal; McKee, Martin (1 January 2009), "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?", European Journal of Public Health, 19: 2–4, doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckn139
1 2 McKee, Martin; Diethelm, Pascal (14 December 2010), "How the growth of denialism undermines public health", BMJ, 341: 1309–1311, doi:10.1136/bmj.c6950
↑ Richard J. Evans. "6. General Conclusion". David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition. Paragraphs 6.20, 6.21. คลังข้อมูลเก่า เก็บจาก แหล่งเดิม เมื่อ October 12, 2007 – โดยทาง Holocaust Denial on Trial. Reputable and professional historians do not suppress parts of quotations from documents that go against their own case, but take them into account, and, if necessary, amend their own case, accordingly. They do not present, as genuine, documents which they know to be forged just because these forgeries happen to back up what they are saying. They do not invent ingenious, but implausible, and utterly unsupported reasons for distrusting genuine documents, because these documents run counter to their arguments; again, they amend their arguments, if this is the case, or, indeed, abandon them altogether. They do not consciously attribute their own conclusions to books and other sources, which, in fact, on closer inspection, actually say the opposite. They do not eagerly seek out the highest possible figures in a series of statistics, independently of their reliability, or otherwise, simply because they want, for whatever reason, to maximize the figure in question, but rather, they assess all the available figures, as impartially as possible, in order to arrive at a number that will withstand the critical scrutiny of others. They do not knowingly mistranslate sources in foreign languages in order to make them more serviceable to themselves. They do not willfully invent words, phrases, quotations, incidents and events, for which there is no historical evidence, in order to make their arguments more plausible.
