Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Thoran,
What more (medicinally) is there to tell from the "no-pill" side of the debate that isn't in the article? The entire second page of the article is dedicated to that veiwpoint and a websource for further information is provided. If you have some more relevant medicinal info on the topic from that side of the argument please feel free to share.
Of course the forum's moratorium on religous topics makes discussion (either pro or con) from that angle one to step lightly with.
I do agree wholeheartily with sentiment that anti-pill health providers should make referals to colleauges who don't limit patient's options. This would be part of the full disclosure mentioned in my best case scenario.
Regards,
edit- ah I reread you post and see I mistook your issue with article. It wasn't the amount or quality of the information contained but how some of wording was framed.
This is why we have a quote function- it helps insure replys are to the point! *drinks desperately needed coffee* [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
No problem, I also stated that I'd only read the included portion of the story (gotta get SOME work done during the day), so admittedly the perception is based on the initial portion of the article. Framing is very important and tells you a lot about the intent of the writer, I typically find that framing is key to comprehension. I'll grind through the whole article tonight, I would be interested to see a writer who starts an article with such a bias finish up with a balanced result.