NY Times today about CH in General Board Posted 11 hours ago I posted a comment about how I thought he had understated the pain of CH by suggesting that attacks are far shorter than they actually are and not saying that they are day after day, often many times a day, and that I also though it was surprisingly uninformed about CH treatments. Of course, that comment is now submerged among hundreds of others, many along the lines of "I stopped gluten"; "Mine stopped with menopause"; etc. But, as you say, at least it's out there. Practically any time I have ever read a newspaper or magazine article about something I actually knew something about, I have found it disappointing -- inaccurate, inadequate, whatever . . . . So why do I still give so much credence to ones that are about something I don't know much about?