Texas shammed license

This editorial is woefully uninformative. It seems to be acase-in-point of what I've been writing for some time. It says 17complaints. How many of the 17 did the Texas Board think held water? It doesn't say. If any, on what basis did they hold water? Itdoesn't say. It referes obliquely to three cases, presumably of theother 17, but it doesn't say whether they were from that group. Whatwas the first patient's condition? Would operation on a patient withthat condition NEVER be indicated? Sometimes indicated? If so, whatother issues went into the decision for or against? Was clipping anartery the only purpose of the operation? If so, what was clippingthe artery supposed to accomplish? What are the morbitity- andmortality-rates for this procedure, for this clinical condition in thebest of hands? Overall? Have any of Dr. Chalifoux's patientssurvived this procedure? If so, how many--i.e., what's thedenominator and what's the standard deviation? One case is ananecdote and doesn't prove anything about the surgeon's skill andknowledge. Is this the only patient who didn't survive the procedurein Dr. Chalifoux's hands? What's the rate of survival of patients whoundergo this operation for this condition, whatever it is, among allneurosurgeons? The article does not say, so the informed reader can'tcome to any rational conclusion, one way or another.Same set of correlative questions alpply to the other two patients,such as whether pain and seizure occurs in some percentage, with somestandard deviation, of patients who undergo the unnamed procedures forthe unnamed conditions, etc.Merely parroting the medical board's press-releases is not reporting,it's stenography and it's unacceptable.