shank - "Like Faessel's view is balanced?"
The difference is that Faessel's writing is based in fact. There is a difference between putting a positive or negative spin on information and deliberately misleading readers by false comparisons, mischaracterizations, and misrepresentations.
"Silence" uses things like false comparisons (i.e. the power bracelet & nicotine) to generate FUD. Notice how he says "CIGX is simply testing for stuff that they already know to be true." He totally ignores the fact that it is Johns Hopkins doing the testing and bases that sentence on the false premise that they were testing smoking/nicotine, not anatabine.
He then launches into a long diatribe about the potential for EnVivo's possible new drug for alzheimers as competition for anatabine, totally ignoring the fact that they still have to find a partner, design phase 3 trials, get FDA approval for those trials, complete the trials, and then if those trials are positive, try to get FDA approval to market the drug. How many years is that? If the Roskamp studies indicate that anatabine works, you can just stop by GNC on your way home. (BTW - If anatabine doesn't work for alzheimers, c'est la vie. There are a lot more bullets in the gun.)
Finally, he continues to try to ignore and dismiss the involvement of Johns Hopkins with this statement. "My guess is it is simply more of the same snake-oil that Johnnie Williams and company has been peddling since the company began." What he actually did with this statement was to slander Johns Hopkins and the doctors who did the study by saying that they are participating in a fraud.
And what "snake oil" is it that "Johnnie Williams" has been "peddling since the company began"? The patents that they have been fighting about with RJR for over a decade have now been ruled valid. So how is trying to protect your IP "snake oil"? I would think that the CAFC and the USPTO rulings settled any possible question of Star Scientific's legitimacy, past or present.
Could it be that "silence" or "ski" is so negatively biased that he doesn't realize what he's doing? Maybe, but I doubt it.
