So, you’ve come on to this editor, saying you want to write a piece in response to someone else’s attack on you.

He emails you back and says let’s talk and discuss it.

You send him another email instead to tell him why he should publish whatever piece you decide to write.

He comes back and continues to express interest in paying you to write a piece for him, but asks you to tell him it will not just consist of personal attacks.

You come back to say, essentially, that it’s difficult to separate the message from the messenger, so you’d have to make some sort of personal attack in the piece.

He comes back again and says that some of what you want to write about has already been written about, but says ‘let’s do something’ if the personal attacks element doesn’t take up too much space.

You come back and make several points in outline of your proposal and then accuse him of not wanting to print your piece.

He doesn’t respond, you say that’s because he’s not interested in self-appraisal and then offer to write another piece which would be a right-of-reply and then follow it by saying you’ll publish the email correspondence.

****

I’m sorry, but this just makes you look like an idiot who doesn’t listen to other people or read what they say, which I’m sure isn’t the case.

I have no truck with the alternative health industry, I’ve never read this magazine and I have no desire to.

But to say this exchange represents an unwillingness to engage in self-appraisal is just nonsense. Maybe they don’t self-appraise, but this doesn’t demonstrate that.

I can only hope that the annoyance you must have felt at being attacked personally must have clouded your judgement.

Given the tone of your emails to this editor, I’m not surprised he suspected a stitch-up at the last. I would have been tempted to say “Send me 1,000 words and we’ll discuss it”, and if it had turned into a libellous piece that would have got him sued by his own columnist or several rich celebroquacks – plainly his concern – then I would have dropped it, although perhaps he was worried about kill fees.

If you wanted a right of reply, you should have written it, not written about writing it. And to be honest, from your emails I fail to see how the second piece would be different from the first one you proposed. And (another and) if you really wanted a response, you have the man’s mobile phone number. You missed an opportunity to (a) get your message to the fluffy bunny brigade and (b) tax their industry for £160.

Rest of the site is excellent. Keep up the good work in sticking it to the pseudoscience lot.

Ray this is one of the things Mr Sams is likely to get uppity about, if it is pointed out loudly and publicly that he is indulging in a bit of wilful deceit. It’s no different than Powe£watch, George Carlo and Mast (In)sanity referring to “radiation”. It’s an obvious and deliberate deception to hype up the scare factor, because they are all aware of the public’s perception of these words.
But let’s not for get that Mr Sams is a businessman and it’s not his job to be neutral, especially about generating profits. And fear is without a doubt a good profit generator. But he is proud of everything he does, so everything is alright!

Pur-leese, Mr Sams. How truly patronising – and, as it happens, nonsensical, prejudiced and ill-informed.

So you think some microventure of a self-styled nut therapist ‘practicing’ her nutrition-lite (and invariably wrong, wrong, wrong) approach to vulnerable patients is a way forward?

Absolute tosh. The NHS has been well served -virtually since its inception – by Registered Dietitians. Yes, we do ‘deal’ with the sick and dying to optimise quality of life. Yes, we also ‘do’ preventative medicine. Yes, we have a broad and deep knowledge base that allows us to qualify medical approaches and put dietary recommendations into context for the client.

And no, unless you’re talking about the parallel beliefs of alternative medicine approaches such as TCM, nut therapists DON’T do nutrition properly. And the reason why people of your ilk choose to swipe at medics all the time is that is truly a result of your prejudice and business spin.

Of course docs don’t ‘do’ acupuncture (unless they’re on Harley St). Chartered Physio’s do. Yoga or tai chi? often found in cardiac rehab or pregnancy classe, where they’re run by Registerd Nurses. So ‘docs’ don’t rate it? So what. the NHS patient management is truly multidisciplinary – holistic, you may say, in your preferred terminology….

Unlike some ‘complementary’ therapies, though, nut therapists try their pretty little heads to understand the science, but its a bit tricky when all you have is a weekend course in detox, or have paid a few thou £ to undertake a course, that actually may just allow you access to a ‘proper’ course if you decide to train ‘properly’ later.

Your health, wealth, and attitudes are all self-determined. As are mine. But my recommendations to others are based on objective science and permit my patients to decide their options based on informed decision making. Not messianic ‘follow me’ statements.

Accept Doc Goldacres offer of debate. Your comments appear to confirm the criticism you state are wrong. Now is your chance for rational debate – why not take it?

And perhaps revise how the NHS actually works before criticising it with faux opinions??

All this kerfuffle arises from a single point I made in my article – that doctors sometimes prescribe drugs that lead to addiction and other problems. I didn’t say they were a bunch of murderers – just that the pharmaceutical industry and the medical industry have made some serious mistakes. It’s regrettable that this has engendered so much anger, but I don’t regret saying it. It’s nothing particularly new. I admire the way that the NHS is embracing therapies such as tai chi, meditation, yoga, nutritional therapy, acupuncture and massage and am optimistic that we are seeing a more proactive approach to maintaining the nation’s health.

I agreed to a discussion in the spirit of open debate but reconsidered after drawing Dr. Goldacre’s attention to the meaning of ‘twat’ and ‘schlong’ and the other irrelevant stuff he was publishing. He briskly averred that he knew exactly what they meant – he is the moderator of his website.

So I wrote to him on the 8th June saying the following

“I’ve read your website carefully, noted your commentaries and the sequence of the interspersion of your comments and those of your correspondents, reflected on the potential for useful discussion and concluded there is none.

I have decided on a lifestyle that suits me very well and makes me very happy and very healthy and I don’t feel inclined to defend it against a mob of anonymous critics. There are aspects of my life that are public, anyone can google me or look at my website. I am not ashamed of my life, my ethics, my skin colour, my age, my wife and family, or my diet but you and your correspondents feel very strongly that I should be. I am no more ashamed of having enough money to be semi-retired at the age of 63 than I am of having lived in serious poverty and debt for most of my life whilst pursuing a business based on my ideals, however misguided you might think they are. I’ve always earned my income honestly and never as a salaried dependent of the State or the taxpayer or a corporation. I don’t think I’m a cunt, prick, fuckwit, child slave exploiter, corporate junk food peddler or sexist, but they and you do. That’s your business and your website provides yourself and them a forum to record your views. I can’t even begin to think of how or when to rebut or argue these views expressed by yourself and your correspondents, so I’d rather let you keep the conversation to yourselves.”

Regards

Craig

Well, on reflection, that was unnecessarily polemical, but given that all I’m saying is that there is a lot of evidence that we need to do a much better job of informing the public about the general dangers of malaria, rather than indulging on an ego bolstering crusade against homeopaths, and the Goldacre hive-mind has gone ballistic, I think that I could be forgiven.

Let’s get real; almost no one takes homeopathic remedies for anything serious as a first and only resort. The overwhelming majority of punters use these non-treatments for non-ailments like “stress” and “chronic fatigue” (try having a wee sit down now and again?).

Broadly I’d agree with your interpretation, but perhaps you could have been a tad more generous in grouping the clear efficacy and side effects into an overall ‘dodgy’.

Now for the next question: can you find us a similar piece of work from the CAM literature that reports on efficacy and serious adverse effects?

Any thoughts on plasmodial resistance to homeopathy?

Of course you are, Calvin. I’m sure you must be formidable at something.

And, Calvin, if you had a fraction of Mecken’s ability to reason clearly you might be formidable. But sadly you haven’t.

It had the enticement of brevity. It says to me that malaria is a serious illness that is relatively easy to catch and for which the prophylactic measures are fairly dodgy and that anyone without good reason should stay out of malarial areas.

never seen this Mencken chestnut before. My favourite Mencken quote is:

“There is always a well-known solution to every human problem–neat, plausible, and wrong”

Works well when used to debunk surgeons prehistoric views on nutrition (eg ‘drip and suck’/ lets wait for bowel sounds etc etc )

But this Mencken quote is just for Calvin, who is proof positive of the worring aspects of woo:

“The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind”

I wonder if you would care to comment on the Cochrane Colaboration’s recent review of the efficacy of mefloquine for malaria prophylaxis?

www.mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD000138/frame.html

Secondarily, given your interest in microbial resistance to therapeutic agents, perhaps yout could enlighten us on how plasmodium falciparum has remained unable to overcome homeopathic prophylaxis/treatment in the last 200 years of exposure whereas it has quickly conquered any molecules it has actually been exposed to?

CAM may do little harm but it does bugger all god AND costs desperate people a lot of money.

QEF’ingD

Since homeopaths spend a great deal of time (in fact all of it) misinforming the public and promoting ignorance for profit then yes I am happy to condemn the lot of them. And I find your justification of their government supported quackery and legalised fraud, on the basis that “there’s something worse” as simply lacking in any perspective on anything.

That comes down to a variant of the “something worse” fallacy: the idea that you shouldn’t bother about X because Y is worse and/or more prevalent. This is covering an area unaddressed by the existing malaria guidelines offered by the FCO and Department of Health. Ignorance is one thing, but actively prescribing non-functional preparations for a dangerous disease is criminal, and ought to be treated literally so.

Firstly, I think you’ve got me confused with someone else.

Secondly, as evidencebasedeating notes, if a ‘conventional’ medical practitioner recommends that a patient foregoes appropriate treatment (e.g. takes a sugar pill instead of an effective malaria prophylactic, when travelling to a high-risk area) they can be disciplined for this. Quite right, too: the effects of such recommendations can be very serious.

“Jim Manson Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 4:13 PM
To: xxxxx; ben@xxx
Carsten

This from Ben Goldacre yesterday. He doesn’t give any clues about what the ‘wider project’ might be. I imagine if he does quote me he’ll do so very selectively. Any thoughts?

Jim”

It illustrates all by itself the problem of the CAM/quack mindset of these people. They are secretive and selective, and careful to print only what they agree with, and what agrees with them. What’s good for business. And they think everybody and everything behaves like them, including science and all scientists.

Could well be J, can you remind me what the homeopathic prophylactic against malaria is exactly, and how many people have died as a result of taking it?