[Stoves] report with disappointing results from cleaner cookstoves

[Xavier Brandao]

Crispin,

"Nikhil says it is not suitable for generating policy. It is a Lancet-style study. It is not the type of information depth and quality needed to make policy."

Nikhil clearly says this study is a worthless piece of rubbish, without 
further details:

"Ah, another report on "scientific" advance. I see scientists regressing to infantilism."
"Lancet and GACC are plain liars."
"Learn and respect science, that is all I ask of you."
"Honest stove research" does not belong to these suited-skirted gangs of "public health". Enough said. Just because so-called "scientists" publish "peer-reviewed" journal articles doesn't make the product safe from an examination of facts and methods. If you can justify these inane results. present your arguments"

Not really along the lines of: "hey, good effort from the scientists, 
interesting findings but it is unfortunately not suitable for generating 
policy."

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Mine is that while it is probably not perfect, this study is far from 
being rubbish.
I think it is one more little step in the long stairway that is our 
understanding of stoves and health. Every progress should be saluted.

It doesn't not prove anything 100%, but what study does? It only focuses 
on pneumonia and stoves, but what health study can assess all the factors?
We complain that is does not do enough. Possibly, but that is already 
something.

/It does not, as Nikhil points out, qualify as anything definitive that 
can be used to create policy./

And should it? Haven't people on this list said that science should be 
independent, be detached from any policy, and do its job, which is to 
increase our knowledge?
I think this is what this study tried to do, and did.

What are we complaining about exactly?

To me, I think we need to be very clear in expressing what we think, at 
the risk of repeating ourselves.

Obviously, if I qualify myself as a "project implementer", and not a 
scientist or researcher, I do have to rely a bit on you guys, who have a 
much better understanding of the technicalities related to this type of 
studies.
Asking for other people opinions, helps me building my own.

That's why this discussion is important to me, and I am not satisfied 
with only a "this study is plain rubbish". And I am sure it is important 
also for other project implementers, in fact, anything related to stoves 
and health should be.
I sure hope the GACC is reading us, and that the results of this study 
will help them make adjustment in their communication.

So that's why I ask so many questions, and try to make things clear for me.

Again I ask: *if you would design a health study to really understand 
**the health impact of improved cookstoves, what would be your methodology?*

It is by answering this question that we show our will to make progress 
rather than just debating for the sake of debating.


Best,


Xavier

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161214/cc96f0c2/attachment.html>