I'm not sure I've ever seen a sillier, or misleading, supposedly serious piece in the Observer than this by their astrologer, Neil Spencer.

Astrology is, as any fule know, utter drivel. Much of it is simply made up (I know, because my job once involved doing just that for one of the leading 'serious' astrology phone lines) and anyone who takes it seriously believes in the equivalent of little fairies in the garden. The same goes, of course, for homeopathy, which is just as silly.

So - surprise, surprise - the paper's astrologer has a would-be attack on Richard Dawkins' dismissal of New Agey, 'alternative' medicine. And what a shoddy piece it is. This is typical of the sleights of hand he attempts: Few things arouse the indignation of science's hard hats like non-conventional approaches to healing. Homeopathy and acupuncture are particularly repellent since they work through mechanisms unknown to the laws of physics. Homeopathy's supposed cures are, according to Dawkins, merely the result of the placebo effect. 'It's our own minds that cure the pain,' he concludes. How that explains why animals respond to homeopathy isn't confronted.See how he conflates acupuncture and homeopathy, and talks about unknown mechanisms. There is a huge difference. Homeopathy doesn't work. End of story. It is a nonsense, a non science, and a non treatment. Any money spent on it is money down the drain. No reputable study has ever found evidence of its impact.

Acupuncture is very different. Evidence shows that it can indeed work. The puzzle is not whether it works, but how. Reputable scientists are indeed puzzled by how it works, and the quest is to unravel this.

Arguing that homeopathy - a waste of time and money - and acupuncture - which science shows works, but which science does not yet fully understand - are in any way similar is typical of the quackery which New Age charlatans promote and profit from.