To lhe Edilor: I wish to congratulate lhe Journal of Psychoaclive Drugs for publishing John Wallace's brilliant anicle "Controlled Drinking, Treatment Effectiveness, and the Disease Model of Addiction: A Commentary on the Jdeological Wishes of Stanton Pee

amination and expo urc of Pecic's shoddy ~holarship is truly an imprcssiv ~ r~search accomplishment. It is astoni hill ' how Pecle has been able to publish ticles th:lt ~1fC L I;.Ig in schoL1fshlp in professional pub-lic. tions. Equally. Lonishing and dismaying is the lack d ' holarship olltl. part of the reviewers. How is it that Ih numerous (ITor ',l:IToneous inferences. and half-truths til.. <Ire charact'ri. It · of Pc Ie's writings manage to slip by ed itors and rcCcl •.? There is. how r, one criticism I have of Wallace's art ide. On pape 270. in the first paragraph t low Table I. it states, "But lkspite optimistic reports by the Sobclls-and sub. '4uently by Caddy, Addington and Perkins as wdl If P ndery. Mallzman and \Vesl (J9~2)- furtlh:r i.. I 'pcndent follow-up of the patients could not coni ifill Ihe findings by either th Sobclls or Caddy. Addin 'ton.U1d Perkins " [emphasis <lddcd). While it is corrcctlhal "I urther ind~pcndent follow-up of these patients could not confirm the findings by either the Sobclls or Caddy, Addington and Perkins, " the italici/.ed phrase is misleading because it appears to be misplaced. Consequently, it is incorrcct and contrary to the second half of the sent n e.1 believe that the laller pan of this sen-tence should indi ate that "Pendery, Maltzman and West (1982) could not confirm the findings of the Sobells and of Caddy, Addington and Perkins." Furth rmore, I have offered explicit reasons why th ir results could not be confrrrned (Malt.zman 1989a, 1989b). Some of the difficulties encountered in attempting to pre-sent these reason and the analyses on which they are based have be n d scribed by McDonald (1989)