--- In [email protected], "Richard J. Williams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > jstein wrote: > > No, you were incorrect in your suspicions (actually > > you knew they were incorrect), and also in your > > claim that your suspicions were justified because > > nobody would give you a (nonexistent) link to the > > article. > > > I'm still suspicious - after re-reading the relevant threads, > it would appear that not a single one of the respondents had > actually read the report published in JAMA, much less > the "Hoodwinked JAMA Caper" written by Skolnick.
I've already corrected you on this point (which you knew wasn't accurate to start with). And you've got the name of Skolnick's article wrong.
