New Scientist Pulls Story then Reinstates it.

[brianp]

http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m3d14-New-Scientist-pulls-story-on-creationist-code

Apparently the New Scientist pulled a creationist book review following a complaint, then reinstated it along with a comment from the complainer. The original article is here

https://www.sott.net/articles/show/1...ligious-agenda

but the reinstated article + comment

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...us-agenda.html

is only visible to subscribers. Are there any subscribers here who can tell us what the complainer's comment is all about?

[chaggle]

http://www.examiner.com/x-4112-Skepticism-Examiner~y2009m3d14-New-Scientist-pulls-story-on-creationist-code

Apparently the New Scientist pulled a creationist book review following a complaint, then reinstated it along with a comment from the complainer. The original article is here

https://www.sott.net/articles/show/1...ligious-agenda

but the reinstated article + comment

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...us-agenda.html

is only visible to subscribers. Are there any subscribers here who can tell us what the complainer's comment is all about?

There was a bit of a thread on this some time back - not much info though...

The complainer was James le Fanu who wrote this in the Telegraph a week or so ago...

There is something suspicious about the orchestrated campaign against the "nonsense on stilts" of homoeopathy, as it was described at this year's BMA Conference, which then urged its (very modest) £4 million of NHS funding to be withdrawn.
The claim that there is "no evidence" of homoeopathy's efficacy would seem to be contradicted by the many thousands of people worldwide who have benefited from its remedies.

Just to put the complainer into some sort of perspective.

[brianp]

There was a bit of a thread on this some time back - not much info though...
The complainer was James le Fanu who wrote this in the Telegraph a week or so ago...

Just to put the complainer into some sort of perspective.

Thank you - I should have spotted that it was an old article and checked to see if it had been mentioned already.