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