Critics stated that both The Sun and Lord Kilbracken cherry-picked the results from one specific study while ignoring other data reports on HIV infection and not just AIDS infection, which the critics viewed as unethical politicisation of a medical issue. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story; he stated that while he thought that gay people were more at risk of developing AIDS it was still wrong to imply that no one else could catch the disease. The Press Council condemned The Sun for committing what it called a "gross distortion". The Sun later ran an apology, which they ran on Page 28. Journalist David Randall argued in the textbook The Universal Journalist that The Sun's story was one of the worst cases of journalistic malpractice in recent history, putting its own readers in harm's way.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What did Lord Kilbracken think of The Sun's editorial?
Ah, so.. Lord Kilbracken himself criticised The Sun's editorial and the headline of its news story

Family history is a risk factor for asthma, with many different genes being implicated. If one identical twin is affected, the probability of the other having the disease is approximately 25%. By the end of 2005, 25 genes had been associated with asthma in six or more separate populations, including GSTM1, IL10, CTLA-4, SPINK5, LTC4S, IL4R and ADAM33, among others. Many of these genes are related to the immune system or modulating inflammation. Even among this list of genes supported by highly replicated studies, results have not been consistent among all populations tested. In 2006 over 100 genes were associated with asthma in one genetic association study alone; more continue to be found.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): How many genes were associated with asthma in 2006?
Ah, so.. over 100 genes

For much of Arsenal's history, their home colours have been bright red shirts with white sleeves and white shorts, though this has not always been the case. The choice of red is in recognition of a charitable donation from Nottingham Forest, soon after Arsenal's foundation in 1886. Two of Dial Square's founding members, Fred Beardsley and Morris Bates, were former Forest players who had moved to Woolwich for work. As they put together the first team in the area, no kit could be found, so Beardsley and Bates wrote home for help and received a set of kit and a ball. The shirt was redcurrant, a dark shade of red, and was worn with white shorts and socks with blue and white hoops.
If it is possible to answer this question, answer it for me (else, reply "unanswerable"): What has the color of the Arsenal home shirts been?
Ah, so..
bright red