Peter Lipson

<p>C'mon, Times, it's not like you're some kind of penny-ante operation. You've got at least modest resources, you know like the internet and telephones to call up experts. Right?</p><p>I don't know whether it's a lack of resources, laziness, or ignorance that allows <a href="http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/alternative-medicine-cabinet-b… like this one</a> into the paper, but it doesn't change the craptastic nature of the piece.</p><p>The byline says:</p>

<p>In<a href="/resources/lessons/covering-alternative-medicine"> a piece on this site,</a> journalist Jane Allen gives some useful advice about covering alternative medicine, but there are some gaps that are are hard for a non-medical professional to recognize (and frankly, for many medical professionals as well). She quite rightly urges skepticism, but when looking into ideologic and muddled topic of alternative medicine, skepticism needs to be turned up to "11".

<p>With over 60% of Americans looking to the internet for health information, the question for those of us who care about health is, "how do we increase the chances of people finding <em>good</em> information?" There are a few components to this question. First, what kind of information is available? Second, how is it found? And third, who is producing it, and for what purpose? Here are a few observations which are, unfortunately, not yet supported by data, but may serve as a starting point for future discussion.</p>