While I support the collective of neuroscientists against your defamation of Dr. Corkin, I have a few important questions for you. I am a neuroscientist myself and wish to inquire the following, as I believe it is my civic to duty to dispel pseudoscience and further scientific literacy. One, what is “in situ MRI”? I have spent a few years doing both in situ hybridization as well as MRI (both in vivo and ex vivo, with scores of modifications) and quite frankly, I do not know what technique you are referring to — I am confident it is a misuse of scientific terminology. Two, you describe the dolorimeter used in HM’s testing as akin to a torture device, why? Many, many drugs are tested in animal models using the hot plate or tail flick test — both yield a lot more information than pain tolerance. (Also, you can purchase one on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Baseline-Dolorimeter-Circular-Probe-Pound/dp/B002WKG1WC . As a journalist, it is your duty to not mislead the public.) Three, have you read through this journal article of HM’s MRI scan (http://www.jneurosci.org/content/17/10/3964.full ) and examined figure 2 with an experienced neuroanatomist? I highly suggest you do so, and not demand that the public such as yourself make unfounded claims about data of which you do not have the training to understand. I hope you can either response or integrate my comments, as I am intentionally avoiding personal attacks or adherence to nepotism. Thank you.