:::::: El Duderino, in some ways I am sympathetic to your position.  I actually think that WP:MEDRS should be amended to specify that content about toxicity should only sourced on reviews done by professional toxicologists.  (There are way too many primary studies done by non-toxicologists that give nonsense results (e.g. a basic neuroscience researcher dumps a bunch of roundup on some neurons and kills them, and then publishes the results claiming that they show that roundup is toxic to humans) and then reviews that are done by non-toxicologists end up incorporating crap like that. Which in my view is shameful.)   HOWEVER, Wolfie is right, in that as far as I know, there is no basis in policy (WP:RS) nor in the WP:MEDRS guideline for excluding content from the journal Genetics from being used as a source.  If you have a basis for making such an exclusion in a policy or a guideline, please state that basis.  If you have no basis in policy or guideline, then please say so, and give up this line of argument.  Thanks!     

  Wolfie and el duderino - this is an intense conversation but personalizing it is not going to help us get anywhere.  Please step back and take a breather, and keep the conversation focused on the content of this article, relevant sources, and policy/guidelines, and leave aside your feelings and judgments about each other.  Please.  WP:CIVILITY is really important to me and I want to keep editing on this page too. Thanks!