ARTICLE REQUIRED DIFFERENT TREATMENT

Editor, The News:

Re: New nutritional therapy treats addicts" (July 7, page A1):

I was disturbed to see such sloppy reporting on a story that could
have very negative consequences for any addicts who read it and
accept the story as accurate, since it was reported on the front page
of the News.

Obviously your reporter needs to review the different standards one
should apply to writing a front-page story on the claims about an
addiction treatment versus writing an advertisement for the treatment.

Nowhere did the writer bother to ask the most obvious questions:
Where does the claim of a 75 to 80 per cent cure rate come from?

What facts back up this claims rate? Who - outside of those people
with a financial interest in this high success rate - conducted the
study showing/supporting this claimed rate?

The way the story reads it should start with a caption of
advertisement . . . advertisement . . . advertisement."

And any editor who failed to make the writer cite the proof of the
claimed high success rate, a most basic and fundamental editing
question, owes an apology to anyone who acts/accepts the story as
true and is harmed.

The News, as our local paper, owes the community a follow-up story to
examine the 80 per cent success rate the paper reported to make sure
that all who read the first story will be able to see the proof, or
lack thereof, for the claimed success rate.

J. W. Breckenridge

Abbotsford

Editor's note: The Abbotsford News does not necessarily support this
treatment, but was merely offering information about a new clinic -
the first of its kind in Canada - being set up in Abbotsford. An
opposing viewpoint - that this form of treatment has no proven track
record - was clearly presented by the two medical experts interviewed
for the article.