What I don't understand is that Famousdog states such biased viewpoints in his edits whereas certifiedallergist has edited his comments to reflect what is purely in the articles only. There does not seem to be any opinions stated in the latter points. Can someone clarify why Famousdog can do that legally and get away with murder on an online encyclopedia that the general public is supposed to trust as being fact-based? I including as many sources as possible, including the French article is perfect but we should not be including outside (by Famousdog) commentary that is not even correct!