This is how homeopathy should be reported on by the media. The article opens with criticism of an alternative medicines business for “spruiking homeopathic ‘remedies’ for radiation sickness in an apparent attempt to capitalise on the nuclear disaster in Japan“:

The Homeopathy Plus clinic, based on the NSW central coast, said in an email newsletter yesterday that “with the increasing threat of radioactive contamination from damaged Japanese nuclear reactors, homeopaths continue to alert people to the homeopathic remedies used for either the treatment or prevention of radiation poisoning”.

The Australian decided to get quotes from Victorian GP Bill Williams (also a “nuclear safety expert”) and Nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos:

Victorian GP Bill Williams, who is also a nuclear safety expert, said there was “absolutely no evidence” for any of the remedies being promoted by Ms Sheffield being useful in treating radiation sickness. “It’s not really very helpful for people to be promoting treatments in a dire situation like this, which could give people false comfort,” Dr Williams said. Nuclear radiologist Peter Karamoskos said the claims that were made by Homeopathy Plus were “rubbish”. “It is dangerous in that it might compromise proper treatment and give false security,” Dr Karamoskos said.

The homeopath in question “could not be reached for comment” but there was seemingly no attempt made by The Australian to obtain quotes from, say, a homeopathic trade association in order to provide spurious balance for their article. Instead, they apparently decided to ask genuine experts for their opinion and were happy to leave it at that. It’s an approach I would like to see the British media adopt.