We were delighted to see Life’s 4 Living posting a response (written by Lynton Guest, AKC) to our serious concerns about their practises. However, we were disappointed to see that they resorted to (long, boring) ad hominem attacks on us bloggers, instead of address our substantive points. To be blunt, we might well be malevolent and sinister – my mum would be so proud – but what is important is whether or not our criticisms are right and whether or not Life’s 4 Living are dealing appropriately with their (potentially vulnerable) clients. Unfortunately, Lynton fails to address this. Read his comment in full here, and our response (quoting extensively from Lynton, and based on a blog comment) below.
Holfordwatch: A Combination of the Sinister and the Secretive
Thank you for our new strapline – eeeeeeeeeexcellent.
every allegation made against the charity in these postings is demonstrably wrong.
We’ll look forward to a refutation of these points in your future posts, but you certainly haven’t demonstrated this here. If you feel that everything we’re saying it wrong – it isn’t – then it’s a shame you concentrated on boring ad hominem arguments instead of more substantive points.
This site is one of the strangest I have ever seen.
You haven’t seen much of the Internet, then, I’m guessing.
It is therefore a good idea to take some time to examine the secrecy of Holfordwatch more closely. On the web-site, in the section entitled, ‘About Us’, it states: “We’re not oversharing on biographical details….because we find it distracts from a critique of the science and ideas.” This is bizarre. Exactly how putting a name to Holfordwatch’s malicious gossip would be distracting is not explained. Indeed, in over twenty years of being in journalism and around reporters I have never heard this argument made before. Following the logic of Holforwatch’s reasoning, academic journals would refuse to include the names of the authors of learned papers in case they ‘distracted’ from any ‘critique’ of the science. This is nonsense, designed, as far as I can see, to provide a flimsy cover for a lack of transparency.
We’re neither professionals nor journalists – we don’t get paid for doing this, and would rather avoid tedious ad hominem arguments about our personalities. Anonymous blogging isn’t exactly anything new, and readers are free to either engage with our ideas, or not. By the way, it’s still common practice for journals to anonymise papers prior to peer review.
It all makes you wonder what exactly Holfordwatch is afraid of.
Well, it goes with the territory, but we do get the occasional outbreak of cyberstalking and threat of violence and/or death. Nothing we take that seriously – but we don’t think our identities are particularly relevant, and this is another disincentive to giving them out.
the whole enterprise smacks of disproportionate prejudice on a monumental scale.
For example? – where do we say something that’s inaccurate. I find this especially daft coming from a supporter of a charity which claims that all Chinese people – the whole billion of them? – rely on traditional Chinese medicine?
Holfordwatch is in some way connected to Ben Goldacre
We like Ben’s work, if that’s what you mean. He doesn’t write, edit, run or own this blog. As for using the term ‘bad science’ – it’s not exactly patented (or original to Ben) and I’m sure Ben would not object to its use. By the way, is ‘Life’s 4 Living’ an original name?
Holfordwatch feels free to assert, without any supporting evidence, that Russell’s explanation for them is “less than exculpatory.”…Is Holfordwatch saying that helping to raise funds for a good cause is wrong?
Russell himself admits having sex with former patients. This is certainly a ‘less than exculpatory’ response to the allegations that were made – frankly, I think we were rather polite here.
The Barefoot Doctor is not and never has been in contact with any of those people whom Life’s 4 Living Trust helps in its charitable works, be they vulnerable or otherwise…the author completely misunderstands the involvement of Stephen Russell, whose role is clearly restricted to accompanying (i.e. helping with) the making of a film of the trip. It was never envisaged that Russell would be directly involved with the patients. And the proof of this is that Russell never met any of the individuals concerned. Had Holfordwatch followed normal journalistic practice and asked the charity to explain its position, it would have been made aware of the true situation. Instead it failed to seek any answers and simply went ahead and assumed its own view. Or at least we think that’s what it did.
We trusted one of Life’s 4 Living’s own PDFs on this. Russell is quoted as saying that “for the best part of a year now I’ve been working with Life’s 4 Living. We are doing some fantastic work with children suffering from life limiting or life threatening conditions, many of whom have little or no medication available to treat them” (p. 2). The same document states that “Accompanied by the Barefoot Doctor (AKA Stephen Russell), the film follows a group of ten children and young adults, aged between 5-21 years old, who suffer from severe illness or disability that is beyond current medical assistance, on a journey of healing and discovery. This journey will take them all the way to China” (p. 3).
If Life’s 4 Living does not want journalists and/or bloggers to presume that the discussion of their activities on their own website is accurate, perhaps they should add a disclaimer to this effect? If Life’s 4 Living did not mean to say that Barefoot Doctor was working with their clients, they should look to revise this document.
Holfordwatch then turns its guns on a director of the charity, Claire Sutton. The most it can say about her is that she expressed a desire to help sick children who might benefit from a fully-paid-for trip to China to see if they could experience any improvement in their conditions through undergoing traditional Chinese treatments.
We do say rather more about Sutton. For example we point out that she espouses the novel belief that healing energy can be transmitted down a phone line. We were kind enough not to mention that she has been spamming a message board for people with MS in order to promote Life’s 4 Living. Which seems rather odd, given that a Life’s 4 Living supporter is now lecturing us about Internet etiquette.
Oh well, maybe this is alternative etiquette.
One such allegation is that “people” went to a training school and “died of cancer”. Perhaps Holfordwatch would be better employed investigating the huge numbers of “people” who have died of cancer at the hands of conventional medicine but this, of course, would not fit in with the author’s prejudices. This matter will be fully examined in subsequent postings.
We do do things other than this blog – and have analysed other issues elsewhere. However, the important question – completely dodged by Lynton here – is whether or not people died of cancer at the training school we referred to. Even if ‘conventional’ medicine were evil, this does not excuse nasty things done in the name of ‘alternative’ medicine.
To be honest – Lynton – I’m annoyed. I’ve waded through a near-enough 2000 word rant from you, and found remarkably few substantive issues to engage with. We do make a number of significant criticisms of Life’s 4 Living – perhaps, in your next response, you might like to address some of them, instead of obsessing about who we are or are not?
118 Comments
March 3, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Holfordwatch, sinister and secretive? Lacking a sense of perspective, much? The Stasi were sinister and secretive. A blog that writes up opinion in a public spot for people to read and gives links to its sources or the Stasi – back in the not so-distant past, which one might have given you a feeling of menace or unease? But then, you seem to discover shadowy evil forces in many places, judging by your Michael Jackson tome.
Thrilled to know about the AKC, Lynton. At the present rate, it is a 6 quid qualification from King’s College London and a nice reward for 3 years of optional lectures (and no exams). As a matter of interest, how much did it cost back whenever you picked it up and squirrelled it away to parade on the internet?
From my viewpoint in the stands, it doesn’t look like the Holfordwatch authors are the ones who are misunderstanding the text as written.
By the way, Lynton – do you endorse the general claims for phenomena, healing of Aids, cancer, CP etc? Do you find it appropriate to diagnose cancer and such without diagnostic tests from appropriately qualified clinicians?
March 3, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Questions for L4L:
Do the ‘practitioners’ to whom you refer people tell them to stop taking conventional medicine, or not? Why (not)?
Do they, or do they not, tell people that they can be cured with ‘energy’? If so, what evidence is this based on?
I look forward to a reply – thanks.
March 3, 2008 at 10:33 pm
The best way to pay Holford for his valuable services is through the Homeopathic Pound — accepted by all good “Integrated Therapy” practitioners: 1. Take one £5 note; 2. Take five large bin bags full of shredded waste paper; 3. Insert £5 note into first bag and shake for 2 minutes; 4. Take a single shred from Bag 1 and place in Bag 2; 5. Shake Bag 2 for 2 minutes; 6. Take single shred from Bag 2 and place in Bag 3; 7. Repeat procedure until Bag 5 has been shaken for 2 minutes; 7. Empty Bag 5 and extract one shred of paper.
This single piece of shredded paper is now worth £5×5x5×5x5 = £3,125.00 homeopathic pounds, which should be enough to pay for a course of one of Dr Holford’s therapies. It’s THAT SIMPLE!!
March 4, 2008 at 11:22 am
Hi guys, great to see your prompt answer to my posting.
This could go on for years! I’ll answer you on this at a later date but first ill want to post responses to your other two articles. I’d just like to say for now that you must realise it’s not good enough to dismiss criticism of your approach as being ad hominem as if invoking this phrase answers anything at all.
We’ll exchange more love letters with you soon.
Lynton Guest AKC
March 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
As ever, Lynton – obsessing on the courtesies that you don’t understand, rather than the content. Also, suggest that you look up critical thinking.
It really doesn’t look like you have the wherewithal it takes to sustain an argument for any decent length of time.
Nobody but you and those like you is interested in anything but the issues raised about the ethics of allowing someone who has admitted to dubious behaviour to be in the proximity of vulnerable people.
Plus the practitioner issues etc. etc. And what about those amazing power of diagnosis for cancer and a host of other fatal illnesses which can be cured with the appropriate application of energy and money?
March 4, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Lynton – yes, it is sufficient to dismiss your arguments as ad hominem. Wikipedia defines ad hominem argument as:
That’s a perfect description of what you’ve done in your first reply – failing to address our arguments, and instead complaining (at tedious length) that we blog anonymously. Where you did respond – inadequately – to our concerns, we did answer your responses. But – come on – do you really expect us to offer a serious response to your claim that we’re malevolent *giggles in malevolent fashion*.
March 4, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I think Lynton’s response above says everything anyone needs to know. Obfuscation is all he is interested in. He has no intention whatsoever of answering any of the original criticisms and questions. Instead he’s content to misrepresent and malign them, then pretend he is the victim which is the issue he will run with.
All standard quack/charlatan procedure. After all, we wouldn’t want to put any doubts into the minds of vulnerable or desperate people that might prevent them from being duped.
March 4, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Guys, guys! You don’t like it up you do you? As soon as someone attempts, from an independent perspective, to defend Life’s 4 Living and start a proper debate, you decide to attack me and my qualifications. And you accuse me of an ad hominem argument! Still, it’s ok I’m a big boy now. Bring it on.
I really don’t have the time to answer all the prejudiced comments of your rabid obsessions but I’d like to take this opportunity to at least correct one of many factual errors I’ll deal with the rest later. Wulfstan, in order to obtain an AKC, you have to be studying for a degree at Kings College, then take an intensive two year extra course which involves attending numerous and lengthy lectures, produce a minimum of over 20 essays and – pay attention Wulfstan – take a number of exams. However, if it bothers you that much I shall refrain from including it in my postings.
My honours degree in Ancient and Medieval History is also from Kings College, one of the recognised top universities in the world. Of course, Wulfstan, we don’t know from which second rate institution you obtained your degree, if you have one at all, since we don’t know who you are. I at least am using my real name and am not hiding like some frightened rabbit like you. I would also like to add that I have had five books published and have written extensively for some of the greatest newspapers and other publications in the world, too numerous to mention here. How many books have you had published Wulfstan?
I am sure you lot will have nothing better to do than attack me further. We should, therefore, have a great time.
Lynton Guest
March 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Lynton, qualifications have no bearing on evidence. It seems to me that the good people at Holfordwatch have asked you questions that you cannot or will not answer. Throwing degree certificates in peoples faces does not win arguments (and paper cuts hurt). Even if one did assume that degrees confer automatic authority, a degree in Ancient and Medieval History does not imply expertise or knowledge in ethics, science or medicine, which are all areas you have been pulled up on. However, I might concede that you have expertise in witchcraft, blood letting and humorism but these are medically hypotheses that have long since been discredited.
March 4, 2008 at 6:43 pm
You are really funny, you know, and obviously mightily impressed with yourself. I don’t expect the words vain and pompous ever come to mind when viewing your impressive personage in the mirror.
Your narcissism aside, it matters little what your “qualifications” are, their relevance or what you think of them. None of those things give any guidance as to your motivation, honesty or integrity.
It would say something for your integrity if you actually answered the initial criticisms instead of playing games (patronizing if I may say so) and pretending to be a victim of an attack.
Your pretence that legitimate questions are somehow to be regarded as an assault on your integrity rather does indicate that you have much you wish to hide. It speaks volumes about your intentions when you are so willing to indulge in obfuscation when what has been requested is openness and perhaps a little truthfulness.
March 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Lynton clearly thought that he was either plugging himself on Richard and Judy: “I would also like to add that I have had five books published and have written extensively for some of the greatest newspapers and other publications in the world, too numerous to mention here.”
Or arguing in the school playground: “How many books have you had published Wulfstan?”
I fail to see what writing several books has to do with commenting on health issues – frankly, I’d rather take health advice from Catherine Collins than Catherine Cookson.
March 4, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“Guys, guys! You don’t like it up you do you? As soon as someone attempts, from an independent perspective, to defend Life’s 4 Living and start a proper debate, you decide to attack me and my qualifications”
Er – only one thing wrong here, Lynton. You haven’t actually done or said anything to defend the criticisms about L4L. Maybe when (if) you do, the blog can respond. But until you do, they’ve stated their position, and you have said you’d respond. All you’ve done so far is moan that the nasty people have said unkind things about your friends, so you’ll say nasty thigns back, but you haven’t actually answered any of the criticisms. You are just trying to divert the argument away from the topic. Which makes me think that L4L have no response.
(And since you’re so keen on knowing people qualifications, I’ve got 3 degrees, have written 3 books and published lots of peer-reviewed papers – none of which has sod all to do with the arguments in this blog)
March 4, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Well, I thought this site was about “commenting on health issues”, but after reading everything… I think you people really need a reality check, putting it politely. You want some TRUTH? Here’s some…
20 years ago, I started my Degree in Chemistry, Biochemistry & Physiology at Sheffield Uni. Then I got sick, and my GP sent me to hospital, where the specialist seemed very excited and happy to see me… He said there was no cure, but could they experiment on me with some drugs they were developing? As the side effects were horrendous, I said ok, but threw the pills in the bin outside, and decided to look for alternatives. As a student away from home, I couldn’t afford to fully explore CAM, but although the homoeopathy I tried helped, I didn’t believe it could really cure me, as I had read the medical text books and knew I was terribly sick, and as a total believer in science, I really thought the CAM people must be a bunch of weirdos, and didn’t trust them.
Within a year, I was so ill, I dropped out of Uni, and went to an A&E department. The doctor checked me, said I was fine, didn’t have ‘my’ illness, just a fever, and sent me home. Within a week, I ended up in an NHS hospital – but only after my petrified parents had to pay a lot of money to some private ’specialist’ to get me past the waiting list. The first day I met a woman who was in for her 21st intestinal operation; they had made a mistake on the 1st, and all the others were to correct that. In my ward, I also saw them experimenting on one guy near me, each day discussing what to try next (he was half asleep most the time, so they felt free to talk about him like he was a lab rat). One day he jumped up, screamed “help, the doctors are killing me”, and pulled all the drug feed tubes out of his arms. He died quickly after that, and I faked my temperature the next day (in case I was next), so I could be discharged. However, I had agreed to take their drugs. At first, they had seemed to help reduce my symptoms, and I was very happy… but after some time everything got much worse, and a week later, I almost bled to death. Then I read the small print, which said the drugs were contra-indicative for ulcers. A large part of my illness was… ulcers. I was shocked that hospital specialists could be doing this, and I stopped the drugs, but had terrible withdrawal symptoms on top of my original problems, which had come back, but worse.
After that, with financial help from my parents, I invested a lot in CAM, trying every wacky thing out there. They ALL helped me stay alive, and get back, slowly, my health, but especially that naughty Chinese stuff you guys love to criticise… and, frankly, IT SAVED MY LIFE. I don’t understand it, because I was educated to be a western scientist, BUT IT WORKS.
Lifes4living are clearly trying to help people, and all you appear to be doing is pulling their web site etc to pieces, and saying 2+2=5. I’ve studied it, and whilst no one’s perfect, they have some very satisfied people giving positive testimonials to the great results and relief of suffering for those sick kids, but all you care about is some salacious gossiping about “what if”. People, try following the NEWS, and you’ll find stories almost every day of doctors & NHS incompetence/ bad practice/ even murder, etc etc.
Are you being paid by drugs companies, or what?
You ‘quack attackers’, well, IF YOU’D HAVE HAD YOUR WAY, YOU’D HAVE BANNED CAM ALONG TIME AGO… AND HAVE MY DEATH AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS USING CAM ON YOUR HANDS…
Is that what you really want? I want common sense to prevail, and CAM to be in every NHS hospital in the UK, not just the few it’s in now.
Thank you.
March 4, 2008 at 10:55 pm
Reality Check,
I had a similiar experience to yours. In my final year at university I went down with a fever. It felt like a really bad dose of flu. Then I discovered some red spots on my arms. An ambulance was called …
No wait, before I finish my story do tell me what I should have done and how common sense CAM could have helped my problem.
March 4, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I had a look at the syllabus of the “AKC Course for General students”. I noticed that the former chaplain of the second rate university I graduated from teaches the ethics section. Did you bunk off that part of the course?
March 5, 2008 at 12:03 am
Mr Guests comment:
“You don’t like it up you do you?”
is rather disturbing comment, given the subject matter to which he is responding.
The issues raised in the original article are definitely thought-provoking. I would have thought Mr Guest would have simply answered each point objectively. The approach taken does nothing to inspire confidence in an organisation I have never heard about before the postings on BadScience, Quackometer and here.
And Reality Check, your post is interesting. However, viewing from the ‘conventional’ clinical angle, CAM has little to recommend its practice other than the placebo effect. I have many examples of CAM compromising, rather than supporting the health of an individual. The only problem is that unlike herbal remedies, I can’t report it as there is no central way of reporting adverse incidents. And absence of reporting does not equal safety in use, however persuasive the CAM practitioner.
I would be interested in a more measured reply from L4L representatives…
March 5, 2008 at 12:35 am
Life’s 4 Living // March 1, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Still waiting! So far nothing but whingeing and ad homs. Where’s the refutation?
March 5, 2008 at 7:36 am
Hi catherine
Its funny how this website critisises Holford appearing on T.V and i keep seeing your face pop up quite often.
The last time this happened i noticed that you are carrying a few extra pounds. This does not set a good example to the kids watching does it.
Maybe see a NT in your area and they should be able to help you.
March 5, 2008 at 11:30 am
Some of us here have qualifications too , Lynton; scientific ones. And we still think you are talking claptrap.
For what it’s worth, mine are a science B.Sc. and Ph.D., both from well-known “just sub Oxbridge” Big City Universities, and 25 years as a university scientist in another similar Univ teaching and doing biomedical research, with the usual 40+ papers in science journals.
This doesn’t, of course, make me an expert in Reiki or nutrition, or how to promote “energy cures”. But it does make me think I have some skills in spotting a scientific idea backed by evidence when I see one. And also that I can tell when I see the opposite.
The essence of the critique of Holford and people like yourselves is that most of what is presented to the gullible as “evidence based” actually ignores. or flies directly in the face of, the body of scientific and medical evidence… When this same sleight-of-hand and misrepresentation is being used to sell product, or solicit for donations, we become very cynical.
Do you have any actual answers about the things said, or are you just about the name calling?
March 5, 2008 at 11:49 am
Nutritional Therapist – Spiteful and irrelevant. This comment does not show you in a good light.
Reality Check –
“I don’t understand it, because I was educated to be a western scientist, BUT IT WORKS”. I call hoax.
If alternative medicine worked, it wouldn’t be ‘alternative’ – it would simply be medicine.
Lynton – Where’s the refutation?