Identifying the roles of different contributors is important. What does it mean that someone is listed as an author?

The field is littered with things that looked incredibly promising but, when exposed to harsh light of clinical trials, failed.

It's certainly disappointing that we're back to where we were. But it's not a disaster.

It's not that journals need to be more careful. Institutions need to be set up so that we don't produce this problem.

This kind of research should not be done without proper ethical oversight. These are very, very tricky issues.

A reasonable scientist who maintained his critical objectivity should have raised some questions. I think that a legitimate claim could be made that failing to do so constitutes scientific negligence, but I don't think there's sufficient evidence that this rises to the level of fraud.

On the whole, it's a scary time in medical ethics because of consumer advertising. Leaving it up to the marketplace is not the optimal way to do medicine.

The state is in a real bind. It has to come up with a painless way of killing without physicians involved.

The worry is if you humanize them too much you cross certain boundaries. But I don't think this research comes even close to that.

To say insurance companies should pay for stuff that is completely unproven is asking a lot from insurance companies.