LETTER OF THE WEEK

To the editor:

Re: "Media mainlines Insite Kool-Aid during court case," May 18.

That was a super article Mark Hasiuk wrote on the supervised injection
site. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The
Lancet, wrote that: "Editors and scientists alike insist on the
pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the
public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most
objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is
biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often
insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

The other built-in biases about the supervised injection site from
proponents doing research who are entrenched in the junkie industry
are fairly evident now thanks to Hasiuk's great reporting.

Al Arsenault,

Vancouver