Interesting Kevin...

As far as the first link it was no more than a re-hash - if we have found a
positive, it can be explained by a negative. (And again placebo which doesn't
address the effects on children and babies). The second link was to the
reflexology forum, which was so out of date (2006) that it would have put anyone
searching off taking it seriously. The third link was invalid.

Is this really the best their "experts" can do? One question remains, why did
they not approach, or have a comment from, any of the Reflexology organisations
listed. It would be the only fair and balanced way to offset it - though they
are happy to include "the sceptic websites..."

The debate continues
Kay

----- Original Message -----
From: footc1
To: reflexologycommunity@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2008 4:45 PM
Subject: [Reflexology Community ] Open University's Response to Dr. Sykes
programme on reflexology


Dear Mr Kunz,

I'm sorry you are unhappy with our programme.

The series set out to give a very personal view of Kathy Sykes' experiences
with these three
forms of therapy rather than a definitive study of the subjects.

However our experts went to great pains to present a much wider range of links
on the
series website and in our booklet to enable viewers to broaden their knowledge
of and find
diverse viewpoints on each topic - even including some "sceptic sites" in an
attempt to
give balance.

http://www.open2.net/alternativetherapies/isreflexologyvalid.html

http://www.open2.net/alternativetherapies/alternative_weblinks.html


https://css2.open.ac.uk/outis/1alight/(opl24m45qfmjlc55nny2zx45)/o1ayourrqst.asp\
x?
CATCODE=OZJALT

Best wishes,

Polly Frazer
Viewer and Listener Information Officer
The Open University - Open Broadcasting Unit.
OU.viewerandlistenerinfo@...
(: 01908 652777





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]