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 Exmemberscritics The stuff on Touretzkys site is supported by the latter and disputed by the former To a neutral observer like the Chronicle its a subject of controversy Thats what ChrisO was saying To explain why Dr Touretzkys opinion of the story is irrelevant Ill 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 isnt expected to publish what the subject wants published Actually its 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 CoSHubbard article It presents both sides arguments without additional comment by the paper but unlike the NarcononCoS claims proof exists to back the assertions made by science For example Narcotologys belief that all drugs have long longevity in fat scrambling of D pictures etc compared to tests on human fat showing otherwise and the D 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