Pubdate: Thu, 26 May 2011 Source: Vancouver Courier (CN BC) Copyright: 2011 Vancouver Courier Contact: http://www.vancourier.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/474 Author: Al Arsenault 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 - --- MAP posted-by: Richard R Smith Jr.