ok duped was a bit harsh ...but the facts in the article were wrong ? or did I miss something? IF I had not asked the question ..no one would be any the wiser and many of the readers of that mag will still think that what was printed was in fact pucker 100% solid gold standard ...which we now find is not the case ...for what ever reason. there is no excuse to go to print with misleading/wrong /inaccurate information ... [delete as appropriate] So exactly how is one to work out that Dr sawyer is not what was stated in the article ...by reading the article ? I might be a bit dim but ...I can't work that out ... If it wasn't for mosfet [all credit to him ] we would still think that what was printed was correct. No amount of shifting blame will alter the fact that I was misled by the printed article ...not by RA perhaps if you've read the retraction you'd be good enough to let us in on the "secret" I will freely admit to not having seen your inital post which clearly shows how far the magazine article got it wrong but don't shoot the messanger if you don't like the message !