<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Crispin,<br>
<br>
<pre wrap="">"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."</pre>
Nikhil clearly says this study is a worthless piece of rubbish,
without further details:<br>
<pre wrap="">"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"
</pre>
Not really along the lines of: "hey, good effort from the
scientists, interesting findings but it is unfortunately not
suitable for generating policy."<br>
<br>
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.<br>
<br>
Mine is that while it is probably not perfect, this study is far
from being rubbish.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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?<br>
We complain that is does not do enough. Possibly, but that is
already something.<br>
<br>
<pre wrap=""><i>It does not, as Nikhil points out, qualify as anything definitive that can be used to create policy.</i></pre>
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?<br>
I think this is what this study tried to do, and did.<br>
<br>
What are we complaining about exactly?<br>
<br>
To me, I think we need to be very clear in expressing what we think,
at the risk of repeating ourselves.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
Asking for other people opinions, helps me building my own.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
I sure hope the GACC is reading us, and that the results of this
study will help them make adjustment in their communication.<br>
<br>
So that's why I ask so many questions, and try to make things clear
for me.<br>
<p>Again I ask: <b>if you would design a health study to really
understand </b><b>the health impact of improved cookstoves,
what would be your methodology?</b></p>
<p>It is by answering this question that we show our will to make
progress rather than just debating for the sake of debating.</p>
<p><br>
Best,</p>
<p><br>
Xavier<br>
</p>
</body>
</html>