It is an interesting question why a supposedly reputable newspaper publishes only one side of a story.
Followers of this blog and other sources of discussion and information about the death of David Kelly will be aware that there is a significant amount of evidence that calls into question the officially accepted "suicide hypothesis".
Why, then, does the Guardian fail to report this?
The approach of the Guardian merits close scrutiny.
Some of the Guardian coverage is lazy and deceptive, in my view.
One Guardian journalist, Vikram Dodd, wrote in August 2010 this article, David Kelly: forensic experts say Hutton inquiry scientifically sound, and in October 2010 wrote this article: The experts are clear on how David Kelly died.
Vikram Dodd's October 2010 article purports to be a response to the release on 22nd October 2010 of the postmortem and toxicology reports on David Kelly.
But it's not that at all.
On closer examination, the supposed "expert" comments seemingly from October are simply regurgitated quotes from August 2010 at a time when the "experts" ought not to have had access to the reports released in October 2010.
Vikram Dodd is, in my view, deceiving his readers into believing that the "experts" have responded to the newly released documents.
It is interesting to compare the supposedly contemporary quotes in August 2010 and October 2010.
In August 2010 Dr. Andrew Falzon said this:
You are going to succumb to a smaller volume of blood loss than if you were a 20-year-old with a healthy heart.
The heart vessel is already deprived of oxygen because of the blockage of the vessels. With the loss of blood [caused by cutting the ulnar artery], there is less oxygen to the heart. Throw in the toxic level of drug, that makes the heart more sensitive to cardiac arrhythmia [an electrical disturbance] which causes sudden death.
I'm sure bleeding from the ulnar artery can kill you.
Amazingly, Dr. Falzon supposedly used exactly the same words in October 2010 when talking to Mr. Dodd, including the essentially meaningless term "the heart vessel".
In August 2010 and October 2010 Professor Peter Vanezis is quoted as saying this:
"These people are more clinicians and are obviously surprised that a person can kill themselves like that." Vanezis also said the lack of large amounts of blood in the wood where Kelly was discovered could also be easily explained: "It was outside, it could have gone into the soil."
In August 2010 and October 2010 Dr. Andrew Davison is quoted as saying this:
You only have so much blood going around. If you have a heart condition you can't afford to lose as much blood as a healthy person.
In August 2010 and October 2010 Professor Derrick Pounder is quoted as saying this:
It may be that there are several factors in a death. In this case, we know he had taken more than a therapeutic dose of drugs, and that he had some pre-existing heart disease. We have three factors in the death that are known to the public. The cause of death is likely an interplay between the three.
Of course, none of the quoted "experts" actually say how David Kelly died. How could they since they hadn't in August 2010 seen the postmortem and toxicology reports?
Banal generalities simply don't cut the mustard first time round.
Regurgitating them simply demonstrates how shallow is Vikram Dodd's coverage of the death of David Kelly.