Nope. Reuters is still a great source of truth. In fact, Reuters is my favorite publication agency. But, it doesn't mean they are saint and won't ever bullshit.

> I'm sorry, you'll base your beliefs on an article in "Medical Hypotheses".

I haven't made any conclusions yet. I'm still analyzing. Both you and Reuters try to belittle the significance of an entity based on its name or the titles of their publications. While it's possible that the publication is pure crap, "belittling" is one of those crappy techniques one can rely on to defend their arguments.