"
Sorry to disagree again, but the article in question clearly puts the story forth as what each side says. (Narconon says drugs can be sweated out, doctors say no, etc.) How Dr. Touretzky took the story is not actually relevant, more on that at the end.
There are four basic ""sides"" depicted in it, on one side Narconon and Scientology on the opposite Science and Ex-members/critics. The stuff on Touretzky's site is supported by the latter, and disputed by the former. To a neutral observer, like the Chronicle, it's a subject of controversy. (That's what ChrisO was saying.)
To explain why Dr. Touretzky's opinion of the story is irrelevant, I'll compare it to a reverse hypothetical situation; lets say Narconon felt that they had been quoted out of context. Both arguments are equally invalid since a paper isn't expected to publish what the subject wants published. (Actually, it's really similar to the lawsuit Barbara Schwarz filed against the Salt Lake City Tribune when they published her story and interview.)  

 On POV expressed in this and related articles on Wikipedia 

Incidentally, this article is an excellent example of the best case scenario of POV in a CoS/Hubbard article. It presents both sides arguments without additional comment by the paper, but unlike the Narconon/CoS claims, proof exists to back the assertions made by science. For example *Narco/tology's belief that all drugs have long longevity in fat, scrambling of 3D pictures, etc. compared to tests on human fat showing otherwise and the 3D picture theory to be unproven.
*Narconon and Scientology are for the purposes of the US Government separate entities and this abbreviation is not meant to imply otherwise. They do however share similar vocabulary and ideas, and when describing these I have chosen to abbreviate.  "