Every time
there is an attack on alternative medicine people write similar letters
in response, defending these therapies but always, there is a lack of
analysis, historical or otherwise. This means that although the number
of replies and combative responses is growing and we are 'learning' in
that sense, no one seems to be describing the supporters of orthodox
medicine in their context and drawing attention to conflict of interest
and vested interest. Consequently it always looks as if these critics
are serious people with important things to say, rather than shallow
half wits guided entirely by vested interest.
Dr Michael Baum was a founder member of the Campaign Against Health
Fraud (now called HealthWatch
http://www.healthwatch-uk.org/committee.html ). HealthWatch, which
is linked to important US lobby groups CSICOP (Committee for the
Scientific Investigation into Claims of the Paranormal) and ACSH
(American Council on Science and Health) has been responsible for a
whole serious of attacks on alternative health, CAM and especially
homeopathy.
Other signatories to the Times letter also have links with HealthWatch,
most particularly Ernst who over the last decade has campaigned
consistently against alternative medicine (and can most accurately be
described as the only Professor of alternative medicine in Britain who
argues the case for pharmaceutical medicine). Ernst spoke at the 15th
Annual meeting of CSICOP held in London where he delivered a quite
childish but supposedly humorous deconstruction of alternative medicine
to the assembled twenty odd anoraks in the audience. At that meeting
amongst his own people, Ernst made no attempt to be even vaguely
academic or supportive of alternatives.
Within the last two years, HealthWatch has been taken over - it has been
floundering for years - by the new industry-backed lobby groups, The
Science and Media Centre and Sense About Science (SAS), these groups are
backed with bundles of money from the Association of British
Pharmaceutical Industries (ABPI) as well as individual drug
manufacturing companies. They are linked to some of the most avid
de-regulating 'libertarian' US lobby groups.
The founder of the Campaign Against Health Fraud (HealthWatch) Caroline
Richmond, has been writing for these lobby groups over the last couple
of years and providing information for Mike Fitzpatrick who is both a
member of SAS and makes journalistic contributions to Spiked, the online
news vehicle of the ex-Revolutionary Communist Party members who are now
deeply embedded in the pro-science Lobby Groups.
It was the above organisations working out of the Royal Society, which
send a letter to the Times with a list of signatories protesting about
critics of GM crops. In this case however, environmental organisations
and journalists like George Monbiot (the Guardian newspaper) organised
with considerable effect against them. Why, oh why, can't supporters of
alternative medicine do the same! Apart from my two books,
Dirty
Medicine and
Zero Risk,
no one has come forward to organise web sites with an ongoing critique
of these industry-backed lobbyists.
One last point, Prince Charles is to be congratulated for his continuing
and committed support for alternative medicine but if I was him I would
certainly get frustrated at the lack of serious support. In the early
1980s, it was Charles who opened and became a patron of the Britsol
Cancer Help Centre. In 1990, the Centre was wrecked by a bogus
scientific paper published in the Lancet, which claimed that women with
breast cancer who attended the Centre died more quickly and in greater
number than those who had orthodox treatment. The unfortunate response
to this attack, was again, constant picky academic arguments about
whether or not the paper's writers had got their statistical analysis
correct.
What there should have been was a full blooded political assault on
HealthWatch and its associates, the writers of the paper and the
connivance of the Lancet in its publication. Fifteen years later
alternative medicine is coming under increasing attack from industrial
vested interests but we are unfortunately responding in the same
piecemeal manner. It's time that supporters of CAM and alternative
medicine, really did get their political act together. While
environmentalists, greens, anti-corporate critics and pharmaceutical
company critics, have all formed political fact gathering organisations
and write consistently about the corporate lobbies which are managing
skewed news, the practitioners of homeopathy and other valuable
therapies, appear utterly unable to organise against the threat they are
facing.
Anyone who wants to
read in greater depth about any of the above, should obtain copies of my
books Dirty Medicine and Brave New World of Zero Risk and
perhaps visit the websites:
www.zero-risk.org
and
www.slingshotpublications.com
If we don't make ourselves aware of the history of these attacks we will
never be able to combat them and they will gradually incur increasing
damage.
Regards, Martin Walker.
F urther
information, e-book download and purchase details for:
Dirty Medicine and
Skewed
More about Martin J Walker
The Brave New World of Zero
Risk
by Martin J Walker
The Zero Risk? Group which includes lawyers and other
professionals, has been set up specifically to distribute Martin Walker’s book
The Brave New World of Zero Risk:
New Labour has approached every aspect of its political agenda
with spin. It is not a party of the people in any sense, but a party against the
people in every sense.
In the realm of science and medicine, New Labour, its lobby
groups and spin doctors have grown used to propagandising on important issues.
Today, independent scientific enquiry is rare, there is only pharmascience,
corporate science and the profitable science of new technologies.
The structure of corporate science, which researches the adverse
effects not just of cigarettes and chemicals but of mobile phone masts and
pharmaceuticals, is completely controlled by the companies who produce these
products. Dirty tricks, spin and corporate censorship have become the
predominant norm.
No quick fix is going to change this situation. To get politics
out of science will entail weeding the corporations out of government and
returning politics to the service of the public, while introducing a public
debate within local and national democratic structures.
The politicisation of science is also in large part the
responsibility of scientists themselves, many of whom have seen in industry and
corporations the saviours of science. Scientists have to find a new and separate
autonomy; they have to design anew their own institutions, which must not be
funded and peopled by corporate interests or dominated by manipulative
government apparatchiks.
Read The Brave New World of
Zero Risk:
at
www.zero-risk.org
Click for an Excellent range of Natural Health Products
 |