Hi Mike and Robert,

Thank you for opening up this interesting debate, the concepts of which i did a
similar paper on a while ago - essentially, whether is it better to have a form
of communication e.g. Media, Internet etc, which is informative and open to
debate, or, a system where we rely on experts.

I think it is probably better to listen to the experts and take everything else
with a pinch of salt. I completely understand why too much contradictory
information, without the expertise to decipher what is right, is potentially
damaging and confusing.

On the other side of the coin, if people are to have any independence in their
choices and the liberty to remain in control - its source can be used for
communication of information and experience.

Expert opinion is usually based on scientific fact of which have strict
procedures and are loath to deviate from methods which can remain rigid to new
ways, but communication gives people the freedom to find new ways and tools for
personal advancement.

I personally choose to do a little research into the bodies which are supplying
me with the information and decide how much value i will put on to the source
and, or, how much time i will spend in personally validating it.

As far as swine flu is concerned - I am trying to do just that. I figure at the
worst, i.e, me or my loved one's getting effected, i will seek help from the
experts, but take comfort from knowing i have access to other opinions. I have
listened to enough advice to know some of the basic precautions, the rest will
come if any of us are unfortunate enough to have to find out. I feel too much
information may panic me and i don't have the motivation yet to look any deeper.

Now if this approach puts me in the neurotic / paranoid category then so be it.
I like to have a certain amount of control but i accept i don't have all the
answers. To an extent i am at these scandalous accusation's mercy as i wouldn't
poo poo everything i hear automatically. Because i am non-biased, i am open to
most things but want to see proof if i am to truly believe in it.

So if it's an argument between proven fact or fiction which may be unqualified.
Do we remain stuck with the tried and tested or look to the new? At which cost
is this to the layman who may feel confused if inundated with information which
confuses them. There is a lot to be said for handing over responsibility to
delegated parties who can spend more time researching the subject but it is a
choice to agree with the approach they adopt or find a different way and if
enough people believe in a certain theory then that is usually the structure
required to base an independent enquiry on.

Hope this makes sense. Obviously this is how i see it. I am not trying to
influence anyone else's views.

Best wishes
Stacey