 |
 |
I would have to agree with you - from talking to the lady , i did not get the impression that she knew very much about the illness when she interviewed me - however that may have been feigned in order to get me to speak, I am a librarian by profession, and have many years of practice in saying things like - according to the information i have,.... or some scientists believe......, or latest research seems to indicate.... and never to give a definite statement without an absolute source .she is either a quick learner or a clever journalist - or both, but i dont think she ranks as a definitive authority on the subject. I do think it was a good article for what it was intended - a lay audience, who want a modicum of information on a subject that has begun to be popular.... however, don't underestimate the Washington Times as a newspaper - it is a full-scale paper - this article was t he lead article in section 5 i think - anyway the FAMILY section - its only limitation is that it is an extremely conservative paper ,nd thus has a more limited circulation that the WAshington Post. BUt it covers the same range of topics. hilary J.. R. Bruman wrote: > . > . > Statements like the one in "Washington Times" taken out of > context have > little significance. The "Washington Times" I think is not a > general- > coverage newspaper but more like a newsletter devoted mainly to > politics, > not medical science; and the statement nothing more than a hasty > attempt > at summary by a nonspecialist reporter. Cheers, > Joe > -- > J. R. Bruman (818) 789-3694 > 3527 Cody Road > Sherman Oaks, CA 91403-5013