<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Tom,<br>
Closing the list? I'd be curious to know who had this brilliant
idea.<br>
That'd be terrible, this is the space where we can find truly
helpful information. This list has helped a lot of people. Much more
than any webinar or conference/workshop ever did. Freedom of speech
has its flaws, but among rants and negative emotions, there are some
ideas too.<br>
I still think we can use freedom of speech discuss on this list with
patience, without too much anger or scorn.<br>
<br>
Nikhil,<br>
I can understand your frustration, but we don't know about the
motives of the people behind this study, the way they think, the way
they work. Rather than "qualify" them, I would really focus on their
work, and on the scientific debate: did they screw up? Did they do a
bad job? Where and why?<br>
<br>
You are sure about the fact that a methodology where 3 groups in
each village using <b>only </b>and for a given length of time
traditional stove, or improved woodstove, or electric plates,
wouldn't at all allow to <b>prove or have a fairly good assumption</b>
that cleaner cooking does exist, and has a positive impact on health
(may it be pneumonia or other diseases)?<br>
If not, why?<br>
<br>
Gentlemen and women,<br>
I think for the sake of clarity, we should really put this simply.
And we should start interacting with the study authors.<br>
People on this list question the study methodology:
<ul>
<li>Assumption 1: there is a lot more to health than pneumonia.</li>
<ul>
<li>Question 1 for the study authors: what do they think? Can
cookstoves be cleaner, their use healthier than traditional
stoves? They said some users noticed they were coughing less?
How important is that, in terms of health?<br>
</li>
</ul>
<li>Assumption 2: there is a lot more to pneumonia than just the
smoky cooking device, there is malnutrition for example.<br>
</li>
<ul>
<li>Action 1: what are the scientific papers which back up this
assumption?</li>
<li>Question 2 for the study authors: didn't they know there was
a lot more to pneumonia than just the cooking device? If so,
then why such a methodology? Don't they think their results
prove nothing?"</li>
</ul>
</ul>
Has one of us started to talk with them? If not, should one of us do
so?<br>
We need to start this conversation, if we want to be going
somewhere. We need to ask clarifications, present arguments, they
will counter-argument, etc. etc. This is how a sound scientific
debate <br>
And this is how, collectively, we can agree on the right methodology
for the next million-dollar health study to measure impact that we
can be sure will happen in the future.<br>
Instead, alas, of funding R&D to make cleaner stoves.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Xavier<br>
</body>
</html>