I would like to echo Kim's posting. Unless you are familiar with the manner in which peer reviewed publication of studies is done, quoting one or the other without consideration of ALL the current publications on similar subjects, many of which will disagree with the conclusions in the report that you are reading, is a bad idea. I know this seems illogical, but it is a fact, that indeed different researchers find different results, and it is only after a period of time and further research, that any given idea can become the gold standard. A lot of what gets published is considered preliminary. That means that while the results of that report are valid, until that has been duplicated by other researchers, it only is a preliminary finding. Often the good results of a study have to be applied with information from another study to gain an actual, usable, treatment that shows significant improvement when applied to very large populations of patients. Quoting that study or finding, is not a good idea, as it is only one group, but further it is a bad idea to do so without knowing the details; such as the uniqueness of the population of people that were selected for the study and the characteristics they have that were set out in the parameters of the studies, established by the authors. Perhaps all the people in the study were over 65, or perhaps they had all had a previous condition, etc. If you take the synopsis of the study alone and believe it to be gospel, you are in trouble because the results only apply to that group of people with those same characteristics. They don