You can find a citation for damned near anything. The quality of the citations is important and how would anyone but a person with significant knowledge of the subject matter know. It's just the human condition. In areas they have no expertise, people believe on faith, chosing whichever answer appeals to them the most.

A few years back the wikipedia entry on kratom was changed to be a pretty critical entry whereas before it was more neutral/positive towards its subject matter. Suspiciously, that happened right during the FDA's failed push to outlaw kratom.

People in the kratom community tried to change it back but someone was sitting on it. The entry was locked.

About the time the gov gave up on scheduling kratom federally, the wikipedia article was finally changed to a more neutral, albeit a slightly negative slant now.

I never thought about the connection before, but how clever of them. The FDA also was screenshotting r/kratom, it's why there are weirdly strict rules on what you can say now. A dude got that from FOIA requests. They were snooping.

So anyways my point, is how would a citation tell you anything unless you check those out.