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