To me, the journalism is not responsible. You hinted in your previous posts that this piece has signs of sensationalism. If you mean that, then we agree. The

To me, the journalism is not responsible. You hinted in your previous posts that this piece has signs of sensationalism. If you mean that, then we agree. The scenario I want to see is less fear mongering in general. It's a vague and subjective desire, but to me, based on the content, the writing, the contradictions, the lack of research, this article lands firmly as mainly fear mongering. To me, it is irresponsible. I can see you have a different opinion, and I'm fairly sure I grasp it: that journalism like this serves as a motivator to pursuing/researching and correcting truly harmful conditions. I just disagree with you on the method's overall impact, all things considered. I don't think science should be driven by whatever collective hysteria (justified, or not justified) has been whipped up by sensationalist journalism. There are always exceptions and gray area of course, but that's where I stand on this particular example.