:::::::: Not really. For one thing, being on the cutting edge means you're on the wrong side of the knife...  For the second, that's actually how Wikipedia works. We always "follow", often at a good distance, behind what RS say. We never lead the way with new information, including scientific discoveries. Good science is conservative, and so is Barrett and QW. When new medical knowledge is established, QW articles get updated. Some which are outdated may not even exist anymore, or they have been revised to include new data. That's the proper way to do things. If QW were to trumpet new knowledge too  quickly, they would often end up having to backtrack, because most new knowledge ends up being a false lead that proves to be a disappointment. That's exactly what quacks do, and make money by selling such poorly supported "new" knowledge. Barrett knows better than to do that.