> Spin... 

I fail to see any overt spin in the story as published in the New Yorker, and I find the attempt to question the credibility of both the scientist and the reporter who wrote about the scientist to be very interesting.  What must someone do to clear their name, if even an article in the New Yorker is insufficient to convince some folks?  Is there any level of proof that is sufficient?

> I failed to find that any such 
> "clear evidence" was actually 
> presented in the article.

Quoting the article:

"...an article appeared in Environmental Health News (in partnership with 100Reporters)* that drew on Syngenta’s internal records.  "Hundreds of Syngenta’s memos, notes, and e-mails have been unsealed following the settlement, in 2012, of two class-action suits brought by twenty-three Midwestern cities and towns..."

> I'm not clear how much
> legitimate information 
> was in the Rachel Aviv article.

She cited her sources, "Environmental Health News", "100Reporters", and the original source materials, court documents.  While it is possible that this could all be a fabrication, it would be very easy to debunk such a fraud, and I believe you will find that the New Yorker takes fact-checking seriously.'

I see this as a solid spin-free story, as it names sources, and quotes specific documents produced as a result of a lawsuit.
But if anyone wants to call around and verify the facts as presented, they are welcome to do so.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html