Lynton Guest - in support of Life’s 4 Living - has posted again on this blog in response to some of our concerns. We’re disappointed to see that his ‘response’ is largely more prevarication - lengthy prevarication - while dodging the serious questions we raise. We will deal with Lynton’s latest posting below, quoting at length. Apparently, this is his penultimate posting on this site: hopefully the next one will actually answer some of our questions. Please.
For the moment, I’d just like to say something to those of you who have suggested that my postings are too long, that I display a lack of brevity. Well, have you got short attention spans? Is it all too much for you?
The issue is not short attention spans, but the sheer irrelevance of most of what you post. For example, while we were sad to read your anecdote about your girlfriend, this does not exactly address our concerns.
Spamming this blog by posting long comments several times does not make us more sympathetic, either.
if I had been brief, I’m sure you would have complained that I failed to answer the points Holfordwatch has raised.
Well, congratulations: you have managed to post thousands of words and still not answer the concerns that we have raised. We don’t demand lengthy replies, but a relevant response would be nice.
I want to make is to inform you that you have claimed your victim. Stephen Russell, who, as I have said previously, has only done good things for the charity, has resigned as Life’s 4 Living’s patron, citing his wish that the connection between him and the charity should not damage Life’s 4 Living Trust further. Reluctantly, the charity has accepted his resignation and his messages and image will be removed from the website in due course. Does that make you all feel better? After all, you’ve got the scalp you wanted.
We did not ask for Russell to resign, just asked some questions about his role in Life’s 4 Living and the safeguards that were in place. If Life’s 4 Living was not able to adequately address our concerns - for example, due to lacking a policy for the protection of vulnerable clients - that is entirely their own fault: they should have already considered such issues.
Lynton goes on to ‘clarify’ something:
Speaking of the Barefoot Doctor I think I can finally clear up some confusion that has been created regarding his role at Life’s 4 Living Trust. The pdf often quoted by Holfordwatch did not square away with the version I have been reading on the website. So I made enquiries. What seems to have happened is this. Over many months discussions took place and documents were worked up and updated until by December 2007 the final version was ready to post on the website. Unfortunately, the wrong document was posted. It was not the final version as approved by the directors and trustees of Life’s 4 Living Trust but a much earlier draft. This early draft was posted in error.
As soon as this mistake was discovered, early in 2008, the posting was removed from the website and replaced by the correct version. However, until the last few days it appears that the old posting was still available, if only on the server…I now realise that Holfordwatch was being informed by the wrong pdf, one full of erroneous information which should not have been there as it did not represent the true position.
Assuming this is was happened, then it seems an odd mistake to make. I’ve never heard that excuse before.
Certainly, I trust that - given their apparent mistake - Life’s 4 Living will understand why those reading a document about the charity on its own website would have assumed it to be an accurate account of their position.
One of my complaints in my first posting was that Holfordwatch had failed to put any of its allegations to Life’s 4 Living Trust. Had they asked the charity the matter would have been cleared up there and then.
It was entirely legitimate for us to assume that the information about Life’s 4 Living on its own website is accurate. If Life’s 4 Living are really incapable of maintaining the accuracy of their own website, can I repeat my suggestion of adding a disclaimer to the site.
Lynton complains that
To describe a short overview as being a belief that all Chinese subscribe to the same world-view or belief-system is an absurd extension of what is actually expressed by Life’s 4 Living Trust. Moreover, try this thought. If someone said that Fung Shui is an ancient Chinese practice which is still utilised by the Chinese to this day, they do not mean to imply that ALL Chinese embrace Fung Shui. They would merely be pointing up the main connections.
Sure, but - as noted in our post - Life’s 4 Living said that
The Chinese take a holistic approach to health. This means viewing the patient as a ‘whole person’ (their physical body and their emotional wellbeing) rather than isolating and treating individual symptoms…If you go to a Chinese doctor, he will examine your whole body and talk to you about your emotional condition; then explain that your headache is there because one of the main organs in your body is not functioning properly.
This is a (silly) claim that the Chinese people and Chinese doctors use traditional Chinese medicine. Had Life’s 4 Living said that traditional Chinese medicine is an ancient Chinese practice, that would have been fine. However, they attributed this type of treatment to ‘The Chinese’. This is stereotyping. And it is wrong.
Lynton then goes on to discuss evidence-based medicine:
Evidence-based medicine…This is a euphemism.
No, it’s not. It has a very practical meaning: the Center for Evidence-Based Medicine defines it as
the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research.
Of course, pharmaceutical companies try to distort the evidence and clinicians do not always follow best-practice. However, there is a significant difference between medicine that tries to be evidence-based medicine - but does not succeed as fully as one would like - and certain ‘alternative’ approaches that lack both a reliable evidence-base and a plausible mechanism of action.
Lynton then argues that
Life’s 4 Living Trust doesn’t denigrate western medicine, rather it believes that it is a valuable contribution to the world.
Now, ‘Western Medicine’ is a much more awkward term. What about evidence-based medicine as practised in China, or by Chinese clinicians - is that still ‘Western’? And what about approaches like homeopathy, herbalism and massage- are they included in the ‘Western Medicine’ that Life’s 4 Living discusses?
As to whether Life’s 4 Living denigrates Western medicine, as noted in an earlier posting their PDF states that:
Western medicine approaches disease from a mechanical point of view, separating the body into a series of parts that are treated individually.
This is a derogatory view of evidence-based medicine - claiming that the scope of such medicine is ridiculously narrow. It’s entirely obvious that in some conditions - for example, certain allergic reactions - a systemic approach is needed, and is taken. For some conditions - type two diabetes, for example - it is standard practice to recommend lifestyle modification.
Of course, there are some conditions that evidence-based medicine would treat in a mechanical way: for example, if I go into A&E with a cut in my hand, they will treat the cut. In some cases, such a mechanical approach is entirely appropriate: if I am bleeding from the hand, I do not want to discuss my emotional state and so forth; I want the bleeding stopped and the cut fixed in such a way as to heal well.
In case Life’s 4 Living hadn’t made our case convincingly enough, Lynton goes on to construct a derogatory stereotype of evidence-based medicine himself:
The biggest problem with western medicine is not its capabilities but its arrogance. And the fact that the medical profession has long waged a campaign to divorce us from our bodies, to suppress any instinctive or learned ability to gain some knowledge of our own individual physiology, so that only the doctor can diagnose and dispense, is evidence enough of its real dynamic. That is not a careful evaluation of the evidence but an inexorable drive towards monopoly.
Evidence-based medicine is actually a direct challenge to the authority of clinicians. It forces them to back up their beliefs with evidence, or to admit their uncertainty. It also opens up considerable opportunities for non-clinicians to assess the evidence-base for certain treatments: for example, one might want to examine whether cough medicine works any better than placebo before following a recommendation to use it.
Moreover, the medical profession has actually campaigned - at length - for people to take control of their bodies in a number of ways: for example, to eat well, exercise regularly, and refrain from smoking and excessive alcohol and drug use. There has been a great deal of effort expended to encourage (generally healthy) people to self-diagnose problems such as minor colds - instead of going into their doctors’ surgeries to seek help for a condition where the best treatment is rest, plenty of fluids, sensible diet etc.
On the other hand, if I suspected - for example - cancer then I would want a diagnosis from a suitably qualified doctor. However, Life’s 4 Living’s own Sarah McCrum suggests that one can use a healing ‘master’ to diagnose cancer. How is shifting diagnosis from a qualified, regulated doctor to a self-proclaimed healing ‘master’ empowering patients?
Likewise, it is hard for me to understand how we are supposed to be able to intuit our meridians and so forth. It seems that we still need traditional Chinese medicine or energy practitioners to diagnose and dispense. This does not empower patients to diagnose - just gives that power to a different group of want-to-be healthcare professionals.
Lynton then moves to try to clear up some conceptual confusion, stating that:
Natural is used to describe non-invasive and non- toxic or drug-based treatment. I hope that’s clear.
This is not a very helpful definition. Obviously, many completely natural things are highly toxic - would they be unnatural under this definition? And, of course, it’s the dose that makes the poison: even things like tea, coffee and water become toxic if you drink enough of them.
For that matter, what does ‘non-invasive’ mean in this context? If I have an allergic reaction in my eye, then buying drops OTC from the pharmacist for symptomatic relief seems a lot less invasive than being prodded and questioned by a Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioner who believes that this reaction needs to be treated systemically.
So, not a helpful definition of ‘natural’. Certainly not an obvious one. But arguing about definitions is dull, so let’s move on.
The pdf I presume Holfordwatch is using here is not a document whose purpose is to present research.
OK - it then strikes me as odd that page 4 appears to summarise the current research on MS, but we’ll let that pass. Unfortunately, Lynton then objects to our reference to research:
Holfordwatch doesn’t really mean ‘research’, it means only that sort of research which it suits western medicine to include.
No, we mean good quality research - which can analyse a whole range of techniques. For example, there’s interesting and good quality research on the potential for relaxation exercises to ameliorate stress - something that I expect Life’s 4 Living would approve of?
Responding to some of our other criticisms, Lynton claims that
Life’s 4 Living Trust does not “promise” to do anything other than devise the programme and provide the funds.
This is getting tedious, but I’ll quote from Life4 Living’s own PDF again:
Health Rejuvenation for Multiple Sclerosis, in Shanghai, China, provides a unique combination of intensive natural treatments, health education and ongoing support for lasting health, designed to break the pattern of sickness and re-establish full health for those suffering from Multiple Sclerosis…Our goal is to achieve lifelong natural health.
Sounds like a promise to me. Back to Lynton’s posting, though:
Another, related charge that falls into the ‘unjustified claims’ category, is described by Holfordwatch as “false hope”. It is equally wide of the mark. If positive results occur then the hope cannot have been false.
Of course, some people would be expected to go into remission. However, as quoted above, Life’s 4 Living dangles the possibility of ‘lifelong natural health’. Without evidence that their approach works, this is false hope for MS sufferers - just as it would be false hope if I marketed branded untested snakeoil as an MS cure.
Lynton also seems to object to us pointing out that Life’s 4 Living demands considerable time and money for unverified treatments, for which they make unjustified claims. However, Life’s 4 Living acknowledge that they ask for a commitment of time and money, and we have shown that they make unjustified claims for their treatments. If Life’s 4 Living and their supporters find this embarassing - as they should - I’d suggest that they stop doing it.
Lynton then complains that
Holfordwatch berates Life’s 4 Living Trust for what it isn’t doing in its China programme. According to the February 25th document it should have picked another condition…Without any evidence, the February 25th document goes on to say that the only reason MS was chosen was because it goes naturally into remission.
No, we simply point out - quite correctly - that MS naturally goes into remission on occasion, and that by picking this condition Life’s 4 Living can expect to generate some ’success’ stories even if their treatment does nothing at all. However, this does not satisfy Lynton:
In its silliest sentence yet, Holfordwatch urges Life’s 4 Living, instead of seeking to devise and implement a serious programme of treatment, should try “causing amputated limbs to regrow,” which “would be much more compelling evidence than MS symptoms going into remission.”
Why is this silly? With no plausible mechanism for ‘qi’ to work, how can we know that it can cure MS but not make limbs regrow? Not to mention that one of Life’s 4 Living’s case studies proudly refers to a child’s head growing substantially - if qi can make heads grow, why not limbs? Seriously.
Lynton then claims to know what beliefs lie behind our blog postings:
At the heart of this is the assumption that any improvement in the condition of MS sufferers must be due to remission. Well, let’s see. If the China programme achieves better results than the usual incidence of remission then we could say there is something going on beyond remission.
No, you couldn’t - not without a well-designed randomised controlled trial. As we argue, the way in which patients are selected for the Life’s 4 Living programme may itself produce higher rates of remission. If Life’s 4 Living want to test whether their treatment works, they need to pay a lot more attention to study design. If they just want to generate happy anecdotes - when some of the MS patients treated naturally go into remission - then they’re going about things exactly the right way.
Lynton then complains about HolfordWatch
Simply using a distorted version of the truth, failing to put any allegations direct to the charity
Actually, we drew heavily on Life’s 4 Living’s own documents. If - as Lynton claims - these are not an accurate reflection of what the charity does, this is not our fault.
By the way, I gather from a comment on this blog that Ben Goldacre did contact Life’s 4 Living - has Life’s 4 Living given a satisfactory answer to his queries yet?
I hope I have shown that not only is Life’s 4 Living Trust an appropriate organisation to run the China programme
No, afraid not. Answering these questions would be a good start. For example, Does Life’s 4 Living have a policy for the protection of vulnerable clients? If so, is this policy made public?
We will await your next response with interest, and hope that it contains some worthwhile answers.
28 responses so far ↓
gimpy // March 13, 2008 at 9:22 am
I’m very curious as to why Life’s 4 Living seems to be taking down certain sections of their website. Have they decided that these sections are embarrassing and, in some cases, disturbing and shouldn’t be for public viewing? If that is the case then why put them up in the first place? This stinks of trying to brush controversial assertions and experiences under the carpet and pretending that they never have existed. It seems to be cowardly and duplicitous behaviour not becoming of a charitable organisation. This, coupled with the inability to answer Holfordwatch’s questions and the barefoot doctors sudden unexplained resignation, implies that there is something rotten at Life’s 4 Living. I hope it will come out eventually.
Essy // March 13, 2008 at 10:37 am
Is Lynton Guest one of their trustees, and if not, is it rude to ask what his role within L4L is, and why he has responded here, rather than the L4L people themselves. I assume they asked him to respond, but why?
Kat // March 13, 2008 at 11:16 am
Essy: Lynton Guest is not listed as a Trustee of L4L on the Charity Commission register. They haven’t submitted a return, so it’s difficult to find out anything about their governance
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?chyno=1116519
Ceec // March 13, 2008 at 11:54 am
Gimpy: look on the bright side - at least if the documents/assertions are complete rubbish they are being removed.
You are right of course that it’s very disappointing that the situation arose in the first place.
gimpy // March 13, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Ceec, if they are rubbish and L4L know that then why were they up in the first place? I know L4L have already claimed that they are ludicrously incompetent when it comes to posting material on their site but it beggars belief that they would post a whole section in error. It looks like they are not prepared to stand by claims, claims that they have used to extract money from donors, when subjected to the slightest bit of scrutiny. Do they know that their claims are unsubstantiated and unbelievable? If so to use them in fund raising appeals is at best dishonest and at worst fraudulent.
Life's 4 Living Trust Ltd // March 13, 2008 at 8:23 pm
All Things Must Pass
Final Response
Since my first posting on March 1st the response has been voluminous. Obviously, I’d like to make some comments. To date, there have been approaching 200, mostly thoughtful replies from all ends of the spectrum of opinion. In addition, Holfordwatch has posted a series of new questions with which I shall deal with later. The postings to which I refer first are only a sample and were those I found the most interesting, extreme or perverse.
As a preamble, there were some excellent suggestions for regulation in the alternative sphere. I’d like to say to all who contributed on this aspect that Life’s 4 Living Trust has been in the forefront of discussions to organise a regulatory regime. It has contacted other organisations to try to find some sort of consensus. Hopefully, these talks will bear fruit before too long.
There was an intriguing exchange early on, before I began to try to answer some of the more outlandish accusations, between Maxine Love, Wildwind and two of Holfordwatch’s contributanswered twice previously, as Goldacre admits in this email. Having twice answered his question, Life’s 4 Living Trust could see no point in giving the same answer that Goldacre had receive twice previouslyors, jonhw and dvnutrix. I hope your private communications have been productive, perhaps you’d like to share them with the rest of us.
The main reply to my first posting came from jonhw on 3rd March. One of his objections to my posting was that it contained “ad hominem arguments”. What jonhw seems to be saying is that it’s OK for Holfordwatch to impugn the motives and characters of others (which it does throughout the three documents) but finds any discussions of its own methods as “tedious”. I think that if you engage in attacks on the motives of others, you should be prepared to answer questions about your own motives and behaviour otherwise you are sailing close to the wind of hypocrisy.
If it is indeed true, as jonhw states, that contributors to Holfordwatch have, in the past, suffered a “threat of violence and/or death”, then we have reached a shocking situation. Whatever our differences, I’m sure we all agree that freedom of speech should be sacrosanct. I hope you reported it to the authorities jonhw.
I was asked to give examples of my phrase ‘disproportionate prejudice’. I noted a number in my second and third postings. If Holfordwatch had waited for all three of my postings before replying, this question would not have needed to be asked. The first document was largely about the Barefoot Doctor. As I said, he can defend himself so I restricted myself to the smaller areas that brought Life’s 4 Living Trust into the spotlight. I disagree with the underlying assumptions informing all three documents, that all things alternative are inherently wrong and their practitioners “quacks”. That, to me is an example of disproportionate prejudice.
As I said in my second posting, I completely accept the assurance that Ben Goldacre has no connection to Holfordwatch.
The point about “less than exculpatory” is that my criticism did not depend on any arguments for or against the proposition. It was about Holfordwatch deciding the issue ahead of a proper adjudication.
As far as the misunderstanding over the role of Stephen Russell is concerned, see my last posting. Life’s 4 Living is now being pilloried for making a mistake and owning up to it. Surely, isn’t that something to be admired? It’s certainly unusual but to call it an “excuse” as the last posting from Holfordwatch does is beneath contempt and does not serve you well.
The point about deaths was dealt with in my second posting. I hope jonhw will agree that I have addressed his points either in my three previous postings or here but I doubt it.
Ben Goldacre, of course, made his own contribution when he cleared up the matter of his lack of involvement with Holfordwatch. His best lines yet though surely came when he wrote on 6th March: “this is fantastic, it is the prototypical quackery discussion thread and must be preserved for all time in some kind of internet museum.” Thanks Ben!
Speaking of Ben Goldacre, he has lately become disingenuous, maybe he’s not well. He claims Life’s 4 Living has not answered his emails. On 10th March he wrote: “I note you have still not replied to my email or answered my question.” This is completely untrue. Life’s 4 Living received an email from him on 20th February asking a number of questions which were answered in an email to him on 22nd February. Goldacre then sent another email the same day asking further questions. These were answered on February 25th when Life’s 4 Living also sent him a copy of its Protection Policy and Code of Conduct. Goldacre sent another email the same day asking one question about the Barefoot Doctor which Life’s 4 Living had already answered twice previously, as Goldacre admits in this email. Having twice answered his question, Life’s 4 Living Trust could see no point in giving the same answer Goldacre had already received. It is strange indeed that Goldacre should post the response he did, which gives the clear impression that Life’s 4 Living failed to respond to his questions. Goldacre must have known his comments were false, perhaps he would care to explain himself.
The first comments were generally hostile until matters took a turn for the better with a series of postings from people who were frustrated with the negativity. So thanks Reality Check, johny, Peru, HolfordWatchWatch, Professor UKdietician and everybody else who tried to redress the balance.
I appreciate jonhw’s comment that “We are not anti-CAM and are not attacking it”. Unfortunately, the last sentence of the posting of 6th March, sums up all too well the attitude that Life’s 4 Living has tried to combat. It says: “….we’re still waiting for an answer that we can take seriously.” This attempt to create boundaries for the debate actually avoids giving any recognition to some of the comprehensive. answers I have provided. So anything I say can be dismissed without recourse to engagement.
Gimpy scores some rhetorical points but destroys his own case by saying “this isn’t a game of rhetorical points scoring.” He also asked me if I think it is appropriate for the Barefoot Doctor to work with vulnerable children. As I have pointed out again and again, he did not himself work with any of Life’s 4 Living patients and as far as I know has not worked with vulnerable children. Claire said something a number of people raised, which is that doctors used to do bad things but no longer. These days, Claire says, doctors do not behave as they did 50 years ago. This is not the experience of many who still suffer from poor medical practice. I guess the picture is complex. Perhaps we can agree on that.
Jonhw came back after my second posting with a quite amazing series of comments, accusing me of “trying to muddy the waters” and “rambling” The trouble is his interpretation of what I wrote is not representative of what I actually wrote. To baldly assert that Holfordwatch’s concerns are not addressed is to ignore virtually everything I had to say. Some minds are so closed aren’t they?
Despite this, many comments began to become a little more civilised, particularly after the posting from sister. Perhaps her words had a calming effect. Certainly, confused thought so. All in all, that was a welcome development.
And finally, Hofordwatch wants Life’s 4 Living to answer yet more questions. In a spirit of cooperation, which we hope will not go unrecognised, we’ll try. But guys, sometime soon you should reciprocate in some way, or at least acknowledge that a serious attempt has been made by the charity to engage with your musings and that it has been as open as it’s possible to be. Not only that, where mistakes have been made, Life’s 4 Living has been prepared to acknowledge them. I’m sure Holfordwatch does not consider itself immune from making mistakes, maybe a recognition of what they are might be good for the soul (even if you don’t believe in the soul you know what I mean).
But, oh dear, without another posting from sister it didn’t take long for Holfordwatch and its supporters to degenerate into further name-calling. There is an anonymous response to my third posting which once again refuses to make even the smallest concession or admission of any mistakes or falsehoods contained in the Holfordwatch documents. It must feel so good to be infallible. To Essy I’d like to say I am not a trustee or employee Life’s 4 Living. I have simply benefitted from TCM and am happy to help.
The (hopefully) last set of questions can be seen above. Some of them are loaded in the manner of ‘have you stopped beating your wife?’ So bear with me. I’ve numbered them 1 through 6.
1. Yes and yes
2. The Barefoot Doctor helped with fundraising events. He has now resigned. He did not work with clients.
3. Part of the point of all Life’s 4 Living programmes is to help provide such proof or otherwise.
4. Yes
5. No
6. This is a number of questions. Links to the Energy Clinic, the Energy Bank and Aiping Wang have already been answered in previous postings. Life’s 4 Living uses and pays for services provided by two of the above from time to time with no problems. The World Education Foundation is defunct in the UK. Life’s 4 Living took over its status in 2007. The charity has no connection to anything called the European Centre for the Blind.
Holfordwatch, in my opinion, should at the very least acknowledge our attempts to engage.
As the Spanish say: Ocala!
Hasta lluego mi amigos
Lynton Guest: March 2008
Life's 4 Living Trust Ltd // March 13, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Dear Holford Watch
We are attempting to post our final thoughts along with the answers to your six questions. It seems that you are blocking us out. What’s the point if you refuse to post our answers?
Yours
Life’s 4 Living
jonhw // March 13, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Lynton- thanks for the response. I’m afraid that Askimet thought it was spam, so it was caught in its filter for a time (I’m not sure why, though I suspect that posting an identical comment twice would not have helped). As you’ll see, your comment is now visible above.
We’ll respond in good time. Thanks for responding to our questions. One quick thing: assuming your policy for the protection of vulnerable clients is publicly available, could we see it? Easiest would be to make it available on L4L’s website and post the link here, though you’ll find our e-mail address on the About Us page if you’d rather send it that way.
Ben Goldacre // March 13, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Lifes4Living have certainly not answered my question.
I asked what discussions took place in your organisation around appointing someone who has acknowledged having sex with previous clients, in an organisation that works with children.
It’s a very simple question, and despite these reams of text about “the wrong document” you have not answered it.
I have little interest in Lifes4Living but I do find it deeply concerning that you have now chosen to treat this question with such cavalier dismissiveness.
It’s also a bit odd that you’ve chosen to conduct this discussion in public rather than simply replying to a polite email.
Claire // March 14, 2008 at 11:10 am
“Claire said something a number of people raised, which is that doctors used to do bad things but no longer. These days, Claire says, doctors do not behave as they did 50 years ago…”
not accurate. I responded to a generalisation in one of your posts that ‘western medicine’ treats people like ignorant and passive vessels, and gave a link to the Department of Health’s expert patient programme, which aims to help patients with chronic conditions have more control over their well-being. I could have give lots of links to sites which provide - free - validated medical advice about managing chronic conditions, e.g. http://www.aaaai.org , dealing with asthma and allergy, the chronic conditions of which I have experience. Or google Mayo Clinic, big-bucks, ‘western’ medicine if you will, and see the wealth of information and answers to patients’ questions they provide, free of charge.
I did * not* suggest that there are no individual instances of poor or harmful practice in modern medicine: that is a complete distortion. As in any profession, there will be people who fail to practice to high standards; and people who make unfortunate mistakes. It is terrible, for patients, families and medical professionals, when such things happen. But conventional medicine does have systems in place to investigate errors and malpractice: people can and do lose their livelihoods if found by their peers to be at fault.
gimpy // March 14, 2008 at 12:21 pm
But, before it was taken down in mysterious circumstances, your site clearly stated that he did work with patients. There is even a video here where the Barefoot Doctor says something like
To me this implies the Barefoot Doctor had an active role, now I may be mistaken so hope you can shed some light on this apparent disparity between what you say, what your site used to say and what the Barefoot Doctor says.
draust // March 14, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Strewth.
If it is true, as Lynton Guest says, that he has “written extensively for some of the greatest newspapers and other publications in the world, too numerous to mention….”
…then I truly fear for the standards of modern journalism. These publications must have deeply dedicated sub-editors to handle 1000-words-per-worthwhile-point streams-of-unconsciousness. Or perhaps this is actually what he means by writing “extensively”.
Since Lynton has signed off in Espanol, I am tempted to retort similarly. For some reason the word “jilipollas” is floating around in my mind. But I will content myself with pointing out that when you type “waffler” into the online English-Spanish dictionaries, the Spanish word that comes back most frequently is “charlatan”
ProfessorLeeTDipNut // March 14, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“At the heart of this is the assumption that any improvement in the condition of MS sufferers must be due to remission. Well, let’s see. If the China programme achieves better results than the usual incidence of remission then we could say there is something going on beyond remission”
“Holfordwatch doesn’t really mean ‘research’, it means only that sort of research which it suits western medicine to include”
With those two statements in mind may I refer Lynton to the following guidance published by the British Charity Commission which defines public benefit. Remember under the Charities Act 2006 all charities have to provide benefit to the public
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Library/publicbenefit/pdfs/publicbenefittext.pdf
Let me refer you to section E, Principle 1, p15. The Charity Commission states: “What matters is what the research the particular organization is doing, how it does it and what it does with the results.” The public benefit of an organization would be very little, “if the methods it used were not scientifically rigorous.”
May I suggest that if “Life is 4 Living” wants to keep its charitable status they should find some people with experience of doing clinical trials to carry out some high quality research.
Reality Check! // March 14, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Wow. I’ve been looking at a a few sceptics’ blog sites, and frankly, it’s left me feeling as sick as a parrot (sic). Hehe…
Whilst I’ve discovered that there is at least one (Prof Obi) real cowboy out there (ok, evidence was anecdotal http://www.quackometer.net/blog/labels/Professor%20Joseph%20Obi.html ), the astounding thing is… he is a qualified MD - the GMC threw him out a couple of years ago. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black! Since then he’s calling himself a CAM practitioner, which is really not helping anyone (except sceptics of course!).
Otherwise, the amount of negativity out there is quite astounding, as is the way it’s bandied around to anything/ one who doesn’t fit into a western scientific view of the world. It is clear that no matter whatever someone like Mr Guest says/ lifes4living and others do, they will always be ‘wrong’ in your eyes, because you believe anything CAM, that doesn’t fit your little scheme of the world, is de-facto wrong/ evil/ baaad. I mean, it looks like your world view is much more important than people being helped to become healthy. Looks like you’d rather give someone pills that give them side effects, than CAM, which would at least work as well, without the side effects. Brilliant! MD’s can make mistakes, but CAM people cannot. Well, just a little gem of truth for you… human beings will always make mistakes, and that’s never going to stop. I forgave all the MDs who almost wiped me out - they were doing their best. Are you guys so perfect, that you can really throw stones at others, whether its a mistake in a pdf, or whatever? And when they admit to mistakes, throw even more stones… Get a life!
There is thus no point engaging with you in any way to try and reach some point of understanding. But thanks for the entertainment, HW etc provides a real belly-laugh, despite their dirge of negativity! I have faith that although, perhaps, the British people are the most sceptical people in the world, they also are the most commonsensical, and the numbers who benefit from the great results CAM is giving them will continue to grow a pace.
PS, my 84 year old mother just told me a few days ago she had meningitis in the 1960’s and was cured with homoeopathy. But then, you don’t care, right! Keep attacking, I’m sure it’s good for your health:) and has made me for one, much more determined to promote the positive work of these CAM people.
Thanks…
ProfessorLeeTDipNut // March 14, 2008 at 8:48 pm
“PS, my 84 year old mother just told me a few days ago she had meningitis in the 1960’s and was cured with homoeopathy”
Good for her. Fortunately, there were no homeopaths at the hospital which treated my meningitis in 1995 otherwise I would now probably be dead.
I am still waiting for a definition of CAM from one of its practitioners. One day perhaps ……..
jdc325 // March 14, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Re: “he is a qualified MD - the GMC threw him out a couple of years ago. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!”
Reality Check: Dr Obi was appropriately disciplined by his professional body and subsequently moved into CAM - where he no longer need fear any potential disciplinary proceedings by a professional body, as CAM is inadequately regulated in this country and there tend not to be responsible professional bodies in CAM. Where they do exist, they tend to not to be overly concerned with things like Codes of Ethics (The Society of Homeopaths springs to mind). This is an example of one of the major differences between Orthodox Medicine and CAM - the lack of regulation in CAM means that it is more difficult to ensure that patient safety is maintained and appropriate medical ethics are upheld. In the determination on suspension, the GMC stated that (due to a potential risk to patients) “the Committee have concluded that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public that his registration be suspended with immediate effect.” Who suspends CAM practitioners who fall short of acceptable standards?
Re: “Looks like you’d rather give someone pills that give them side effects, than CAM, which would at least work as well, without the side effects.”
You might have had a point there - if it weren’t for the unfact that you included in your statement. CAM doesn’t work. If an alternative treatment worked it would cease to be ‘alternative’ and simply become ‘medicine’.
draust // March 14, 2008 at 9:46 pm
There is meningitis and meningitis, Reality Check. If your mother had genuinely had bacterial meningitis and ONLY had homeopathic treatment she wouldn’t be around to tell you the story because she would be dead as the dodo. She might have had a mild viral meningitis, but that is not the same thing.
Another point is that lots of people attribute recoveries to things which don’t have anything to do with their recovery. Another reason medicine needs proper trials. It is a well-recognised and common thing for people who take CAM therapies IN ADDITION to conventional medical therapies to attribute their recovery to the CAM stuff. John Diamond wrote illuminatingly about this in “Snake Oil”.
[If you haven't read it, the Diamond book is very funny, and true. It contains a lot of his other journalism on subjects unrelated to CAM, so even a die-hard CAMmie like yourself might enjoy those bits.]
I don’t know whether this same “attribute recovery to the CAM stuff rather than the conventional treatments” could be true in your own case, although I assume that when you were acutely hospitalised you would have had plenty of treatment, probably high-dose intravenous steroids, possibly antibiotics and no doubt loads of fluids of various kinds.
Finally, you are right that the ludicrous Dr Obi shows that even conventional doctors CAN be charlatans. The difference, as Claire has pointed out above, is that there is a system in place to stop them doing lousy work and endangering the patients. Contrast CAM, where there is no regulation of the “therapists” at all.
Mojo // March 16, 2008 at 10:45 am
Referring to the claim that L4L posted “the wrong pdf”, you wrote, “assuming this is what happened, then it seems an odd mistake to make. I’ve never heard that excuse before.”
Lyntin signing off in Spanish reminded me where I’ve seen that excuse before.
See here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2005/1162.html
‘I think I know who sent this. There was a Spanish guy on work assignment over summer, it must have been him.’
WunderKid // March 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm
I don’t have any previous knowledge or experience in alternative health, but I have been following these blogs with interest. There have been good and bad postings on both sides, but to be honest I don’t really feel qualified to comment any further. One thing has really interested me though and I’m sorry if this is a side issue, is the stuff about Mr Ben Goldacre. Since Mr Goldacre is a renowned commenter (I read his articals every week) I’d like to point out that his last posting completely fails to respond to the chronology of emails posted by Mr Guest just a day or two before. I also found it a bit weird that Mr Goldacre complains about Mr Guest discussing the issue in public… because it was Mr Goldacre himself a few days previously (March 3rd and March 10th) who discussed this whole issue in his own postings. I am not sure if I qualify as being important enough to receive an answer form Mr Goldacre himself, but it would be nice.
Sister // March 16, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Dear Holford Watch and all its followers
I don’t expect I will be visiting here much anymore, so I just wanted to make my final contribution to you all.
There have been strong and passionate arguments both for and against alternative medicine and the work of this charity. I feel my role here is not to take sides, but to try my best to bring some of Gods wisdom to you all, in the hope that we can all take a step back and see that we are all ultimately children of God:
“Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way as you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye” (Matthew 7)
I have said many prayers recently for the people who are gathering here, as I feel this argument (setting aside the charity for a moment) represents the conflict, which we see throughout the Bible of the believers and the non believers.
God Bless you all
Confused // March 16, 2008 at 2:13 pm
This is my final posting on here too.
What can I say to sum up other than I am still “confused”.
HW set the tone originally. Sadly LG continued it. I hope he never has to defend me.
I have no issue with complimentary or alternative medicine used appropriately and responsibly. I can’t say either way if this is the case in this instance.
I am unhappy that LG defends the L4L. There could always be the disclaimer that “he” said this or that. We do not know how much is him and how much they asked him to say. An outright statement from the Trust would have helped.
I think the charity on balance does excellent work from what I can sort out from all this confusion and their web site. However there are niggles in the back of my mind. Is it really necessary to use people far away and it would seem with some controversial background to heal children. Go0dness there must be equivalent therapists in the UK or people who could be trained. Money saved.
I don’t want to get involved in the Barefoot Doctor debate. None of us know the timeframes involved, whether the charity appointed him before or after the newspaper report, or if they considered it a problem at all.
I suppose if I were to be asked to put some small change in a collecting tin for the charity I would. If I wanted to give a donation to help sick children I would be unhappy giving it to this particular charity unless it was for a UK involvement and a specific thing like relaxation tapes, massage etc. To some extent this is because they seem happy to use LG who seems to me to act somewhat unprofessionally in his attempts to speak the truth with sarcasm, an offensive(to me)phrase(yes it was you I see LG) and a childish Spanish sign off.
However he did at least have the courage to speak here where he knew the jury had already made a guilty plea.
Thank you for this exchange. It is important that all groups and persons are held to account. HW ultimately however is not the one to whom the accounting should rest.
As for the energy medicine, the non scientific debate etc - it is personal choice. If I choose to believe in anything and am given all the facts both ways then it is my choice. These children’s parents are acting on their children’s behalf. There is NO evidence that they are not taking prescribed medicine.
These sorts of debate are best conducted in a mutually respectful way. This does not seem to be the case here and would therefore preclude me again from seeing this as an opportunity to gain clarification on complimentary or alternative medicine.
Holford Watch is doing what they believe to be right. I cannot judge them. How they go about it is questionable. In my humble opinion they do themselves no favours and their approach limits any good they might do.
I will just say goodbye in English.
Essy // March 16, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“I don’t want to get involved in the Barefoot Doctor debate. None of us know the timeframes involved, whether the charity appointed him before or after the newspaper report, or if they considered it a problem at all.”
L4L’s logo appeared on BarefootD’s website just after the news broke in the papers. It was viewed with cynicism and suspicion by persons who were keeping an eye on BD . I believe someone wrote to L4L to aleret them at the time. It would seem they were unconcerned, in any case, as they have given him a high profile on their website.
LeeT // March 16, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Keep promising myself “this is my last post”, but here I am again …..
I agree with Confused that it does not seem a very good use of resources to spend lots of money taking people to China.
However, as I said above Life’s 4 Living really need to prove the effectiveness of what they are doing. Perhaps they can: (1) provide proof that what they are doing works or (2) give an undertaking to carry out research very soon.
If they are not prepared to do that they have no business being a registered charity and possibly some one needs to write to the Charity Commission about them.
Confused // March 16, 2008 at 6:20 pm
It seems discourteous not to reply, although I did say, that was my final post.
Essy - I would conclude then if that were the case ,those involved in the charity, with access to more data than the man in the street, and having an opportunity to talk face to face with The Barefoot Doctor, were satisfied as to his suitability given his role.
Lee: I deliberately used the word far away as oppossed to China to avoid any possibility of confusing the TV programme, with what I think from trying to read through all the information, happens already. This is just to clarify my position.
The TV programme will make good TV - and will probably provide funds indirectly, but good TV and children’s health is a different matter. I think most of these kinds of things are stage managed but have no evidence I must add that this is so. Maybe film the venue if they must but bring the people to the children. This is a matter for their Trustees to consider though not me.
At the risk of going over the same ground again and again - HOW could you demonstrate energy medicine. It may help emotionally, spiritually, the general mood of the child, etc. It would be hard to quantify this scientifically.
It would seem a backward step if flexibility were not given to Charities.
LeeT // March 16, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Not sure what “energy medicine” is. However, surely it should be possible to do a controlled trial comparing what Life’s 4 Living is doing compared with (1) those undergoing other more conventional treatment and (2) those not currently undergoing any treatment at all.
If L4L’s treatment works this should come up in the trial. Of course, flexibilty should be given to charities who want to challenge the status quo. However, charity law is quite clear. You have to be able to prove a public benefit. If L4L think they have a miracle cure they should be prepared to have it subjected to independent scrutiny. Going on about “Chinese medicine” and “alternative medicine” simply won’t do.
Of course, reducing stress levels through massage and going on holiday to China could be classed as charitable activities. In which case they need to amend their objects: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/registeredcharities/showcharity.asp?remchar=&chyno=1116519
Confused // March 16, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Lee:
The controlled trial you proposed would seem acceptable. This is what I was trying to suggest that once the emotion but not the passion is taken out of the equation there is more opportunity for common ground.
If I knew what “energy medicine” was I would be Divine and many believe it is. What exactly is energy? I am not at all scientific so I couldn’t exlain it scientifically. Energy enables me to work and play. Energy medicine is a kind of energy which promotes healing. You can “feel” energy near a waterfall, on a mountain path, near a cave. Natural and/maybe supernatural.
Every cure, assistance, is a miracle and so the term “miracle cure” suggests a pre-determined sceptisism.
I don’t recall any mention of a holiday to China. Again you give meaning to a trip, which although we may agree on its wisdom, is not stated.
The charity question is not one of personal concern. The good they seem to be doing to me falls well within that remit.
As I said in an earlier post - it is good that people practising any kind of medicine are accountable. It isn’t enough to say it is complimentary or alternative and not substantiate its benefits.
What a pity that it was not in this spirit of mutual respect this whole debate had not been conducted some weeks ago on this site.
And this must be my final post - honestly.
LeeT // March 17, 2008 at 12:11 am
I do hope L4L will think seriously about proving whether or not their treatment works. If they can prove the existence of energy medicine they can probably win a Nobel Prize!
Energy according to my dictionary has two meanings: (1) strength and vitality required for everyday activities (2) power derived from the utilisation of physical or chemical resources. The trouble with the AltMed industry is that they confuse the two.
Reading and commenting on blogs has certainly drained my energy ….
Life’s 4 Living and Barefoot Doctor: inconsistencies in their account of events « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science // March 18, 2008 at 2:52 pm
[...] - some of our criticisms of Life’s 4 Living, Lynton Guest gave what might seem like a clear explanation of Stephen Russell’s role in the charity: The Barefoot Doctor [Stephen Russell] helped with [...]
Leave a Comment