Dear All,
in this week's SPECTATOR (16.03.03), Matthew Parris describes in some
detail a simple cross-over trial of sorts (n=2: he's got two legs which like
'most of us men' he 'keeps quite separately in trousers': one he uses for
the experiment, the other as a 'control').
He tested three remedies for 'itchy legs in winter': 1. a well-known and
expensive patent moisturising cream ; 2. the cheapest, unadulterated
petroleum jelly; 3. engine oil (Mobil, SAE 20W-40).
He lists six outcomes. Outcome 4: ....' the short term balm persisted
longest - for nearly a day - with the petroleum jelly ...' Outcome 5:
'There was some evidence that once the treatment was stopped, and after the
effect had worn off, the skin on the treated leg became drier and suffered
more from itchiness than the untreated leg'.
Among his comments: 'I wouldn't mind betting that the average taxpayer is
spending more per annum on things to smear, wipe or dab on her or his skin
than the Chancellor is spending, on our behalf, on national defence'. This
conclusion appears to justify the title of his article 'Forget defence
spending and concentrate on moisturising cream, shampoo and petroleum
jelly'.
He also seems to canvass for membership of SCEPT, his 'Society for the
Confounding of Error and the Prosecution of Twaddle', which will in future
columns, he suggests, examine the diet industry, and insurance.
Interesting reading.
Best wishes,
Reinhard Wentz
ICSTM, London
|