The Guardian are much more amenable, though. Here's the comment from today's 'Bad Science' section.
ยท Meanwhile, it was a delight to see intellectual Jeanette Winterson, following her recent article on the predictive powers of her favourite astrologer, writing in the Times on Saturday about a project to treat Aids sufferers in Botswana - where 48% of the population is HIV positive - with homeopathy. Some might say it was slightly patronising, unrealistic or even pointless to take your western, patient-empowering, anti-medical establishment and culturally specific placebo to a country that has little healthcare infrastructure, is frequently engaged in a water war with Namibia, and suffers frequent droughts. But we can only guess what the people of Botswana might say.
i find The Guardian's perspective unneccessarily dismissive, but don't really know what I think of her suggestion. It doesn't seem like the most practical approach to the problem.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― Silly Sailor (Andrew Thames), Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:06 (twenty-two years ago)
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/water2.php
I'm not sure of the scientific value of that study, as I don't speak Scientist.I'm interested in alternative medicine but have never really 'got' homeopathy. Perhaps I just don't know enough about it, though.
btw...the guardian link is here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1122903,00.html
worth reading the whole of the 'bad science' section, as the rest is quite amusing.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)
― adam (adam), Thursday, 15 January 2004 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)
And I don't think the Guardian is dismissive: it reports facts (of demonstrable absurdity) with a nudge nudge/wink wink but leaves the reader to arrive at his/her own conclusion about whether/how absurd.
― ArfArf, Thursday, 15 January 2004 16:41 (twenty-two years ago)
― Phoebe Dinsmore, Thursday, 15 January 2004 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 15 January 2004 17:05 (twenty-two years ago)
― Jaunty Alan (Alan), Thursday, 15 January 2004 17:06 (twenty-two years ago)
― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 15 January 2004 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)
i have worked in a library for seven years and still can't reference an article properly.
i think it may have been the times, which would explain why it wasn't on the web site for the daily mail.
i'm now blushing furiously. probably much like ms. winterson.
― hobart paving (hobart paving), Thursday, 15 January 2004 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)