The NIH gets it ..  this is a long thoughtful review of FSSW   full service sex workers .. it covers from the girl in the alley to the $1K girl with a website ..   you can see they understand the truth and blow up myths ...     maybe just maybe we will see legalization or at least regulation in our lifetime ...  ok maybe your lifetime    

One would hope that an NIH/VA paper wouldn't have at least two grammatical blunders -- just in the Abstract.  I have not read the whole thing but the beginning is ... odd.

Have not read though the whole paper (probably won't either) but it doesn't read like a spoof. Seems like it is a real paper and does take the subject seriously.

Out of sheer curiosity, can you show me those two blunders that you have identified?

This paper is silly....where are they getting these statistics and data? If anyone is TRULY interested in reading about sex workers rights, challenges many in the industry face, and interviews from those actually in the industry, here are some more reliable sources for information:  

You would think that people who had been seeing sex workers for decades would trust their own eyes and experiences over what some so called expert, who is often just some college kid with ZERO real life experience writing a paper for class, which will be graded by a teacher with even less life experience in the subject.

The four people who wrote it are from the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Healthcare System.  

The OL was not MSM.  But it is in print.  
Rubbish, or not?  Ignore the New Yorker injection for a moment -- what's your call on the NIH/VA preprint?    
.
*OL = Original Link

Read about half and skimmed the rest and it seems pretty reasonable.

Most people writing such papers have at least learned the proper use of a comma. It's also a VERY difficult read and I started getting a headache well before I got even halfway through it. I am hardly a professional writer, but I write better even when PUI. lol