The linked Technology Review article is the exact same one as that linked in this accepted submission on November 1st. The same work by these two researchers was reported again in this second accepted submission 3 days later. I think we've had enough opportunities to discuss this for now.

If you read the Early Day Motion he signed in 2007, he says is that he "believes that complementary medicine has the potential to offer clinically-effective and cost-effective solutions to common health problems faced by NHS patients" (emphasis mine). To be fair, he was only one of 206 MPs (including such luminaries as Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister) who signed the motion. That's almost a third of British MPs who believe the NHS should be spending upwards of £4 million* per year treating sick people with something that works no better than a sugar pill.

* This is from the £12 million 2005-2008 expenditure figures for homeopathy obtained by Channel 4, which apparently doesn't include the running costs of the NHS homeopathic hospitals that the Early Day Motion is supporting.

I'm afraid the DOI system doesn't actually bypass any paywalls. I was simply noting that this particular article was publicly available (most Nature articles are not). A DOI is just a persistent, unique "digital object identifier". It is now extremely common for academic journal articles to have a DOI assigned to them. The DOI for an article remains constant, and resolution from the DOI to the current URL at which the article can be found is handled by the DOI resolution system. The DOI for this article is 10.1038/487407a, and one way to resolve it is to prefix it with 'http://dx.doi.org/'. If you want to read more about DOIs, there is plenty of information at http://www.doi.org./

Link to Nature article http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/487407a (no paywall).

Actually, all +1 votes, whether or not made by your friends (and regardless of their +1 sharing preferences) may contribute to the total +1 count for a particular piece of content.

From google: "Regardless of whether you chose to publicly share your +1’s tab, your +1’s will still be visible to others viewing the content you +1’d. For instance, your +1 could appear as part of an anonymous aggregated count of the people who have also +1’d the same thing"