Plagiarism is not something "based on bogus evidence," but rather to copy something that someone else has done and to claim it as one's own. Typically the victim of plagiarism is legitimate research, not bogus research.
Plagiarism is not to "parrot a popular perspective." The more well-known the original work, the less likely you are to successfully plagiarize it. The victims of plagiarism are typically lesser-known or forgotton works, which places them by definition toward the fringe, not in the mainstream.
It sounds to me like you're looking at one well-defined, isolated incident and trying to force-fit it into a broad agenda of criticism against all mainstream science. Am I right?
|