Thank you for your recent post. All of us on here for various reasons are trying to sought out fact from fiction. How we do that seems to differ.
Someone somewhere, possibly you, (it is hard to find things easily on this site no wonder people keep posting things and are then told they spam) made the comment as I recall about “they don’t like it up em.” Not sure now where that is and forgive me if this is not a correct quotation. This comment I find offensive in the light of some things which have been alluded to. I find it hard to believe it is merely a chance remark. Shame on whoever posted this.

Mr Guest’s last post was a demonstration that L4L are willing, despite it would appear HW did not initially address them direct, to defend their organisation. By defend I mean in the face of attack. Sadly the last response Mr Guest once more continued the tone set by HW of using emotive words rather than facts. This was particularly noticeable in your reference to The Barefoot Doctor. His name and picture will be removed.. naturally is he has resigned it would be. I am not sure what you are seeking here to gain.

HW has set the precident in this I appreciate, but please, could you in your final response not sink to their level.

All of this is getting tedius now and neither side really does seem willing, as I hoped, to understand the other. You seem to have made your conclusion and then twist the facts to suit your own theory.

I initially was pleased to have found this site. It is good that people are taking the time to look into health matters. The Internet is a wonderful way to do this.

Obviously after Mr Guest’s last response I will have to find another less confrontation site now that my appetite has been wetted.

Neither party has seemingly gleaned anything from the other.

Maybe in future, and I won’t know, because shortly I for one will be leaving your, HW could address it’s concerns initially directly to L4L, PW or Uncle Tom Cobbly on the understanding that their response will be published on the site.

I hope Mr Guest hurries up, but carefully considers his response so I can once more get a life.

My thanks to some lovely people I have met on the way here and to some others who I might have come to love if they were prepared to let go of a little bit of their ego.

I remain more “confused” than ever.

You have to admit he did go on a bit. You would be amazed at my grasp of the english language.
When responding to these guys at HW you are absolutely wasting your time and effort.
There beleifs are purely sceintific and will never be persueded that the way the world and our bodies work will never be or supposed to be understood.
You guys and your beleifs seem to fall into the same trap by believing you have an understanding of something that we are not capeable of ever understanding.

*sigh*

I shall now leave this thread to Reality Check, who I feel sure has another anecdote or conspiracy theory with which to respond.

Re. Reality Check’s last:

What most of the sites / organisations that get debunked by the BadSci types have in common is that:

(i) they offer extraordinarily scientifically and medically implausible claims or explanations. Sometimes these are simply laughable. Frequently they require one to discard all of the basic laws of physics, or of chemistry, or the whole of medical science as we now have it.

(ii) The sites commonly also tell you, or at least imply, that conventional science, or medical science, or doctors are uncaring, unfeeling, only interested in dishing out pills, in the pay of Big Industry or Big Pharma, part of a conspiracy etc etc.

(iii) The sites are often SELLING you something expensive and useless (e.g. “anti-EMF” paint).

(iv) The sites are laden with personal testimonials, because they have no actual data or evidence to convince you with.

(v) The sites usually appeal subliminally to you to TRUST them, even if that means putting reason on one side and even though the people involved are almost never bound by any sort of professional code.

(vi) There is not infrequently an explicit appeal to those who are distressed, vulnerable or in extremis.

The Powerwatch “electrosensitivity” site that Reality Check links to above ticks all of these boxes.

Interestingly, it also explicitly REJECTS “mind-body connection” as any explanation for the perceived symptoms of those who are sure they have “electrosensitivity”.

This last embodies another problem with “alternative paradigms” – there is absolutely zero consistency. What one chunk is rejecting – see “electrosensitivity” – another is embracing (“illness is all in the mind” or “the mind can always heal the body”). This leaves us with a kind of post-modernism of belief systems where you can believe completely contradictory things simultaneously – all just seen as a kind of smorgasbord of “personal choice”.

Well, if you have the money, and the time, go ahead. Choose to BELIEVE what you prefer. But…

…please don’t expect me to approve of the NHS paying for your philosophical journey, and for unproven and wholly implausible “therapies” under the guise of “the healthcare OF [YOUR] CHOICE” (Reality Check’s phrase).

We need the tax money to pay for the stuff that can be shown to work.

And don’t expect me to approve of people mis-selling CAM to the worried and biddable, either, however much those that being sold to may “Want to Believe”.

Indeed, I did all the Holford-dey things. Tried to avoid dairy and a nutrition therapist advised me to avoid all citrus fruits. The Holford diet was rather dull and difficult to follow so I gave it up. I also bought some expensive pills which promised the Earth. However, I still drink Rooibos tea.

If it had not been for so-called allopathic medicine I would now be dead. Anecdotally speaking I would rather be alive. Of course, people have the right to freedom of choice in health care. However, if the AltMed lobby wants taxpayers money and scientific credibility should they not be setting out to prove their treatments work.

Is that really too much to ask? St John’s W is a herbal remedy that clinicl trials have proved to be effective in treating mild and moderate depression. I am sure there is others out there as well. You can’t market things on the basis of anecdote. Do you understand where I am coming from?

I presume you were trying to link to a Martin Walker ebook a few days ago. With an open mind I read it on Saturday evening. I found it a very bizarre work. I am sure there will an opportunity to comment on or analyse it at some point in the future.

I made a posting a couple of days ago

I am extremely interested in healing, as I have seen many miracles in my life. I would like to take this opportunity to speak to all of you – surely ALL people who are trying to help others are good people, this includes surgeons, doctors, alternative health practitioners, L4L and of course the church. As I understand, nobody alive today is perfect, and endless faults can be found if you dig deep enough. As far as I can see, this discussion has no absolutely no end – both sides have valid points, and both are right.

I would like to thank ‘Confused’ for the lovely reply to my first message. He or she said ‘I do however share your planet and we are connected by the “life force” whatever name we give it or none’

Is it possible that we all unite with this in mind?, both western science and alternative medicine have failures and successes, but aren’t we essentially all good people here, who want to help others?

As far as this charity goes, all I see is yet another bunch of people trying to help others in the best way they feel they can. Probably they have made some mistakes, probably they have had successes to.

God Bless

They find a target they don’t like.
They find some half baked info about them, including a lot of mis-representations of the truth
They present it all as factual attacks.
They present their target as scientifically ignorant/ unqualified
They present their target’s activities as un-scientific, and therefore, at their worst dangerous.
They don’t respond/ acknowledge their target’s replies as being anything other than lies/ rubbish/ not answers…

ALL VERY SCIENTIFIC IN METHODOLOGY, AND APPROACH…

Just look at this, for example, about a Panorama programme on BBC:
http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20070529_panorama_extra.asp

It seems to me that Mr Guest has, on behalf of Lifes4living, set forth very clear and full answers … to a plethora of accusations, mis-judgements and plain attempts to rubbish l4l’s very welcome contribution. If you are any one else doesn’t like answers, don’t ask for them.

I hope that others will be satisfied, so far, as I am, that l4l is acting in a very responsible way to fill a very great need. I commend their efforts.