I actually was not arguing against bias in the article, rather the appeal to emotion and failure to seek a reasonable explanation before directing the reader to a conclusion. I wouldn&#x27;t mind if it had taken a stance. Perhaps out of personal prejudice, I dislike the attempt to influence opinions without providing evidence, especially after the flagrant attempt to elicit empathy before such evidence could even have been presented. Take this tidbit:<p>&quot;Mia Brooks of Salmon Arm, B.C., noticed the seizures in her son more than a month ago.&quot;<p>When Mia Brooks of Salmon Arm, B.C. first noticed seizures in her son is completely irrelevant to the subject of the article. I&#x27;ve given my time to read in the hope of forming an educated opinion on a topic of general social interest, and the first thing I encounter after reading a description of the disease is a story meant to induce feelings of sympathy for these unfortunate people. This kind of journalism is, in my opinion, manipulative and socially destructive, no matter how noble its author&#x27;s intentions. I realize this is a common enough problem, but I don&#x27;t feel apologetic about pointing out when I see it.