Whatever your view of Dr Barrett, he has the ability to
verbally get to the heart of complex matters. Pointing out
how many science-based web sites now talk about alternative
medicines such as homeopathy in a neutral, and tolerant way,
making it ---
"difficult to discern fact from wishful thinking
when describing complementary and alternative
medicine."
-----, he goes on to say -----
"I don't think you should write balanced articles
about unbalanced subjects," said Barrett. He
points to such wording as "although
controversial" or "is thought to work by," which
implies there is rigorous scientific debate.
"Controversial? I don't consider quack claims
that clash with science as controversial. They're
senseless."
I don't agree with everything he says. With the vastness of
the subject of alternative medicine it is impossible to be
100% accurate all the time. But when Dr Barrett says
something it usually stays said,
Peter Moran