My point wasn't "guilty by association", though given the reputation of the original source, I can see how it would be read that way.
My point is that progress in the medical sciences isn't charted through "exclusive reports" to newspapers. As anyone who clicks through the link you've helpfully provided will note, this is a story based on a white paper, not a peer-reviewed journal article.
I'm sorry, I don't know offhand what the "DH" code is for the error this newspaper article made. I suspect it's a high number. 23, perhaps.
My point is that progress in the medical sciences isn't charted through "exclusive reports" to newspapers. As anyone who clicks through the link you've helpfully provided will note, this is a story based on a white paper, not a peer-reviewed journal article.
I'm sorry, I don't know offhand what the "DH" code is for the error this newspaper article made. I suspect it's a high number. 23, perhaps.