Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism is Martin Walker’s fourth book charting the development of the corporate science lobby that has grown rapidly since New Labour came to power in 1997. One of the most recent exponents of the Lobby is Dr Ben Goldacre who has regurgitated a bad ‘Science’ column in the Guardian newspaper since 2003.

Like other quackbusters Goldacre claims to write factually based and scientifically accurate articles about health, medicine and science either supporting scientists and doctors or criticising individuals involved in alternative or nutritional health care. Goldacre’s writing, however, actually reflects the ideology of powerful industrial, technological and political vested interests.

Goldacre who it is claimed is a Junior doctor working in a London NHS hospital is actually a clinical researcher working at the centre of New Labour’s Orwellian spin operation that puts a sympathetic gloss on anything shown to create adverse reactions from MMR to Wi-Fi, while at the same time undermining cost-effective and long tried alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homoeopathy. Goldacre is involved with public health researchers well known for trying to prove that those who claim to be adversely affected by pollutants in our modern high-technology society, suffer from ‘false illness beliefs’.

Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism, investigates Goldacre’s role in industry lobby groups and puts another point of view in defense of some of the people whom he has attacked, belittled, satirized, castigated, vilified, maligned and opined against in his junk journalism.

Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre, quackbusters and corporate science, is available from the Slingshot Publications web site as a free download, from mid-day on Wednesday January 2nd.
http://slingshotpublications.com/index.html

I agree that if a blog is oriented towards debate then censoring opposing positions does not appear to make sense on the surface. Just to be clear, however – this blog is not a debate blog, it is a blog that exists to promote health by sharing information and experiences. There are other blogs that invite debate. It’s a big, wide world out there, as I am sure you know. Happy blogging to you.

I’ve been reading & commenting on a few of the ‘homeopathy blogs’ with interest. However, on one blog, freetochoosehealth, almost all my comments are being deleted, however polite. Today I have had two posts deleted that were just saying ‘Happy Christmas’.

This confused me. I think that everybody should be free to make choices about their health based on all the best information we have. Censoring comments suggests an unwillingness to engage in debate. If you hold strong beliefs, you should be prepared to defend them with argument and evidence, or re-evaluate them if you can’t do so. Censorship doesn’t help anyone.

I’ve put up a blog of my own, just containing the titles & a link to each of FTCH’s posts. I won’t delete comments on there (if I have no choice, I will always explain why), and anyone from any side of the debate is welcome to write whatever they want, without censorship. I would rather hope that you can all manage polite & reasoned discussions, but I won’t delete what’s not.

Please join me, and submit comments on both freetochoosehealth and http://freefromcensorship.wordpress.com/

Many thanks,
‘Duck’.

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password:

As far as my personal situation, please see my comment in “About”.

But I would like to take a moment to talk about the idea of “medical complaint” as I understand it from a homeopathic point-of-view. [NOTE: I am a learner, not an experienced homeopath, so I am not speaking from a position of deep authority...just what I have come to understand in my interaction and involvement with this healing modality.]

Homeopathy looks at singular “medical complaints” somewhat differently than your typical physician in some cases. In some cases, there is not much difference.

For example, if you fall off of your horse and fracture your wrist, you have an “acute” injury with a known cause and straightforward path of treatment. Treat for shock if necessary, stabilize the joint, X-ray, set, cast, etc. Treat for swelling and pain as required. I think most physicians and homeopaths would agree on this basic route. [NOTE: again with the disclaimer - I am not a doctor, so there may be something I missed here.]

What would be different between a conventional physician and a homeopath would be the tools used for treating the acute symptoms – the pain and swelling, for example. I don’t know what drugs are used for this typically by doctors…I would imagine something like Advil or something stronger perhaps. Maybe even a narcotic or sleeping aid. A homeopath, on the other hand, might consider Arnica for the physical trauma to the wrist (pain and swelling), and perhaps a bit later Symphytum for the pain of the fracture and to speed healing.

So the approach, if not the tools used, are quite similar – the condition has a known cause and is usually self-limiting (that is, the pain and swelling might disappear without medication, it might just take longer and be more discomfiting.) The fracture of course demands treatment by a medical professional.

Colds, flus, and such also fit into these basic acute conditions that can be treated quite nicely with homeopathy and make for good situation for giving homeopathy a try.

Now for a difference between conventional medicine and homeopathy, consider a person that quite gradually developes the tendency to wake up their partner in the middle of the night because they were kicking in their sleep. Maybe it started occasionally, but is now disrupting the lives of both people, depriving them of sleep so they are not quite “on their game” as often as they would like.

If you to to a medical doctor, they might treat this “medical complaint” (kicking in the sleep), offering a prescription and maybe giving the situation a name (“restless leg syndrome perhaps?). An on the person goes, on their merry way. But that prescription might do more than just stop “restless legs”…it may affect the entire constitution in other ways (side effects?). Is the person “cured”?

A homeopath would look at this “medical complaint” not as an isolated condition, but rather as part of a pattern of symptoms and sufferings that encompass the entire person. Someone said, “homeopathy does not treat symptoms, it treats persons”. I think there is something to this. Especially in the case of a condition or set of conditions that have emerged over time and do not seem to be improving but rather affecting a person in a greater and more limiting way. Removing the “restless legs” through homeopathic treatment might be just one of the many ways that health is restored to the person. This is one of the beauties of homeopathic cure.

Bad science cult members have the “innocent question technique” down to a science, (I would have said science but then they may argue with that).

It is usually to prove that the medical complaint that you had was “self limiting” and ultimately an attempt to ridicule.

We should be free to choose health.

http://freetochoosehealth.wordpress.com

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Password: