" 

 ::::Broadly speaking (and I don't speak for Andy or anyone else, necessarily), I'd rather not encourage a situation where we get into ""duelling allegations"" from low-impact, dubiously-reliable blog sources—or even suspiciously one-off, never-followed-up-on stories from slightly-more-reliable outlets.  If we start adding more negative material from skeptical blogs, then we start getting demands for WP:PARITY and effusively-positive material from gullible blogs.  We drag the article towards more he-said she-said back-and-forth wittering, instead of recognizing – as editors – that there just isn't any meaningful news to report.   
 ::::Incidentally, that's the public-relations 'win' condition for proponents of any fringe theory.  There isn't any ground to stand on to support conclusive positive statements, so the best they can go after is to give the (completely misleading) impression that the ""science isn't settled"", ""there is ongoing debate"", ""more research is needed"", and that we have a responsibility to ""teach the controversy"".  As usual, the best examples of this sort of duplicity are readily drawn from the annals of U.S. public policy discussion: the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in schools, the existence of anthropogenic climate change.   
 ::::Concentrating on the various and sundry alleged locations of Rossi's magical moving factories is to miss entirely that Rossi has yet to satisfactorily present a credible theory, describe his methods in adequate detail, demonstrate a working device, or ship a product.   "