Life's 4 Living

Click Here for 'The First Response'

Click Here for 'The Second Response'

Click Here for 'The Third Response'

Click Here for 'The Last Response'

Click Here for Ben Goldacre’s Responses

Holfordwatch: A Combination of the Sinister and the Secretive

A First Response

As someone who is independent of Life’s 4 Living Trust but has a working knowledge of its operations, I have been asked to reply to stories about the charity recently posted on the Holfordwatch web-site. This is my first response. Others will follow.

On February 21st, 22nd and 25th 2008, in three separate articles, Life’s 4 Living Trust came under a vicious, sustained and unprovoked attack from a source that can only be described as cowardly and unprofessional. But perhaps more important, every allegation made against the charity in these postings is demonstrably wrong.

The attack emanated from a site called Holfordwatch. This site is one of the strangest I have ever seen. It is dedicated to debunking the work of one particular individual, an alternative nutritionist called Patrick Holford. Now I know little of Mr. Holford’s endeavours but whatever his transgressions may have been, from my analysis it appears that they hardly merit the labours an attack-site such as this takes to set up and keep going. In fact the whole enterprise smacks of disproportionate prejudice on a monumental scale.

Before turning to the specifics of Holfordwatch’s articles on Life4Living Trust there is one other extremely weird aspect of the site’s activities worth inspecting: its carpet-bombing of those to whom it takes a dislike is carried out anonymously. Moreover, its justification for this stance is not only one that to my knowledge has never been put forward before (probably because no-one normally involved in the investigative reporting of others would be so cowardly) but is also mind-bogglingly smug and, in journalistic terms, unacceptably unprofessional.

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.

It doesn’t end there. The site goes on to say: “It doesn’t matter whether we are the pride of our mothers and the despair of our schoolfriends.” This displays a juvenile approach which is breathtaking. Perhaps, ordinarily, this wouldn’t matter but these people are in the business of trying to destroy those with whom they disagree.

And there’s more. They say: “It’s the ideas, science and analysis which count”. Once again, the authors fail to tell us why these two propositions – putting a name to an article and ideas, science and analysis – are mutually exclusive.

Some of those who have responded to this self-serving rubbish have seen through Holfordwatch’s pathetic attempt to justify its secretive approach. Jim Manson, for instance, asks, “Who are you naughty boys and girls?” The site, in its answer to Manson, completely ignores his question, which prompted him to ask again....”Who is behind the site?” In the face of such persistence Holfordwatch was forced to provide some sort of answer. Having first reiterated the previous point that “our biographical and personal information has nothing to do with the criticisms we make....” (in which case why not include it?) they then ask of Manson, “Why are you concerned?”

This strange stance to legitimate questions is best summed up by the respondent ‘youtellmeyoursandilltellyoumine’, who asked, “Surely if your names are not a secret then why not state them unless, of course you have something to hide?”

It all makes you wonder what exactly Holfordwatch is afraid of.

Given that the writer prefers to hide behind the parapet of secrecy, we can only speculate as to his or her identity. It is possible - but not certain - that Holfordwatch is in some way connected to Ben Goldacre, who writes the Bad Science column which appears in the British newspaper, The Guardian, once a week. Suffice it to say that no reputable newspaper would allow a column like Bad Science to be published without the author’s name on it, hence Ben Goldacre’s visibility when he writes for such an internationally renowned publication.

The reasons for this supposition are as follows. First, the nomenclature Bad Science is used in the site’s headlines. If Goldacre is not involved, then among Holfordwatch’s many sins, the stealing of his label shows an inclination for dissembling and a complete disregard for the usual conventions. Second, Ben Goldacre’s name is cited by a number of respondents to the site. These postings are neither confirmed nor denied by the author(s). Third, Mr. Goldacre recently contacted Life’s 4 Living Trust with some questions about Stephen Russell, aka The Barefoot Doctor. Perhaps the subsequent appearance of these articles is mere coincidence but I wouldn’t place a bet on it. But if it is anything to do with Goldacre, why would he abandon the high-profile method used in his Guardian stories? Perhaps the Guardian requires a higher standard of professional care than a web-site. Whatever the case, it is odd that a web-site and its blogs should wish to hide themselves so completely when they are in the business of producing hatchet-jobs on others. It is hardly reassuring to know that while they are happy to attempt to ruin the reputations of their targets, they themselves refuse to reveal who they are.

The first article was posted on February 21st under the title ‘Barefoot, Sex, Sleaze and Life’s 4 Living’. Its main thrust is twofold: that Stephen Russell plunders the spirituality of other cultures and sells it in a repackaged form to a western audience; that he has had sexual encounters with women who, at one time or another, were his patients; and that Life’s 4 Living Trust has allowed him access to vulnerable people.

No doubt the Barefoot Doctor can deal with these questions himself. However, to give the reader a flavour of Holfordwatch’s style, it is worth making the following point since it displays the techniques Holfordwatch uses again and again. In the attack of February 21st, the site refers to matters relating to Russell which “have yet to be adjudicated upon.” Yet despite this fact, Holfordwatch feels free to assert, without any supporting evidence, that Russell’s explanation for them is “less than exculpatory.”

Although the site quickly degenerates into a News of the World type of sexual innuendo, we’ll let that pass for the moment. It is not long before the document brings Life’s 4 Living Trust into the equation when it states that “Barefoot Russell is fronting for the Life’s 4 Living Trust.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Holfordwatch goes on to profess concern that a charity should be associated with someone of Russell’s disposition. This is nothing more than a pejorative and biased interpretation of the situation. Let’s state here the facts. 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. He is a patron of the charity and has been instrumental in attending events and assisting with its fund-raising activities, for which the charity thanks him. He also allows his name and image to be used in publicity material. Is Holfordwatch saying that helping to raise funds for a good cause is wrong? It seems so. We may ask at this point whether the anonymous and secretive persons behind the site have ever done anything for charity themselves.

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. In the eyes of Holfordwatch, this is wrong because of the charity’s association with the Barefoot Doctor. But 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. In response to a question from the aforementioned Ben Goldacre on this very subject, the charity fully explained both this point and Stephen Russell’s general association with the charity. If Goldacre has nothing to do with Holfordwatch, then fair enough. If, however, he is connected to the site, it appears he has wilfully ignored the inconvenience this knowledge must have brought. We, nor anyone else, can say whether he has had any input into the article because of Holfordwatch’s propensity for secrecy. If he is not involved then surely he should take steps to distance himself from this appalling and inaccurate site.

The rest of Holfordwatch’s February 21st document can be categorised as a trailer for the attacks of February 22nd and February 25th. It refers to some so-called “seamier antecedents” of Life’s 4 Living Trust. All of these allegations will be refuted in the responses to the subsequent two articles, which will be posted within the next few days. Having said that, it seems a good idea to nail a couple of the final allegations, which are made but not fully explained in the document of February 21st.

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.

In a similar vein, Holfordwatch berates Life’s 4 Living Trust for seeking sponsorship from corporations. Tell us, Holfordwatch, whether it is nobler to encourage corporate entities not involved in health-care to become interested in the plight of sick people or if it is ok for the conventional health industry to be in bed with multi-national drug companies and huge health insurers, who already have massive vested interests in the field.

To sum up, let’s state some simple facts, a procedure that appears quite alien to those at Holfordwatch. Life’s 4 Living Trust exists to raise money and pay for treatment for those unfortunate enough to be suffering from some of the worst diseases in the modern world. Often these conditions are incurable by conventional western medicine. Is that so bad that anonymous and secretive organisations like Holfordwatch can denigrate this work simply because it doesn’t fit in with their narrow-minded world-view? It appears so from this shoddy and malevolent piece of work.

Lynton Guest AKC: March 2008

Holfordwatch - The Edge of Reason

A Second Response

In my previous posting I dealt in the main with two matters. First I voiced some concerns about the methods Holfordwatch employs, particularly its use of anonymity, and second its possible connection to The Guardian columnist, Ben Goldacre. Then I went on to examine the more substantive issues of Holfordwatch’s attack on Stephen Russell, the Barefoot Doctor and the charity Life’s 4 Living in a document posted on February 21st 2008. Overnight, Ben Goldacre disassociated himself from Holfordwatch and of course I accept his denial of any connection with the site or input into the articles of February 21st, 22nd and 25th. I’m pleased we managed to clear that one up at least. Furthermore, a long response to my article was posted from Jonhw of Holfordwatch and I welcome his further participation in the debate. His arguments will be dealt with at a later date since this piece is essentially answering the posting of February 22nd, entitled, ‘Life’s 4 Living, The Energy Clinic, Claire Sutton and Sarah McCrum’.

The main allegations in the February 22nd document are:

1) that Life’ 4 Living is staffed by people who believe in the healing power of energy and the charity works with people Holfordwatch doesn’t like, especially Stephen Russell;
2) that BBC2 broadcast an unfavourable documentary on the Energy Bank;
3) that Sarah McCrum (a trustee of Life’s 4 Living) has made unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of energy healing;
4) that a television station broadcast a critical programme about Aiping Wang and the Phenomena Academy in New Zealand where two patients had died;
5) that Claire Sutton (a director of Life’s 4 Living) espouses eccentric beliefs;
6) that Life’s 4 Living has corporate sponsors;
7) that some people associated with the Energy Clinic and the Phenomena Academy are now part of Life’s 4 Living.

There are also some references to CRB checks although there is nowhere any suggestion that any of those named in the article or other staffers at Life’s 4 Living have criminal records.

1. The Healing Powers of Energy and Stephen Russell

It is true that many of those at Life’s 4 Living believe in the healing powers of energy. They are not alone in this. Many societies - over time and throughout the world - incorporate similar ideas and in our own culture there is a substantial number of people who would argue that there is more to the issue of healing and happiness than meets the eye. Those of you who believe that only the western approach to medicine can be countenanced will not, I am sure, be swayed by any of this. However, if you have even a scintilla of doubt over the proposition that western medicine possesses all the answers, then maybe you will be prepared to read on with an open mind.

It is interesting to note that nowhere in the document of February 22nd is any evidence put forward to prove that alternative ideas cannot work. Rather, it is a given. An accepted fact. The approach seems to be, if it’s not conventional, it must, by definition, be wrong. Ergo, if you believe that alternative methods can, as the document says, “treat and mitigate” diseases then you must also be wrong. This is hardly a scientific approach. Of course, the argument I am making does not prove that any particular form of alternative treatment works, that can only be determined by research and analysis. What I can say (and I do realise this is anecdotal) is that I suffered a serious condition for which conventional medicine has no answer or cure. At the time I was as sceptical as those who write Holfordwatch’s material. Yet after a week’s Chinese treatment, which I turned to in sheer desperation, my symptom’s had not only disappeared and have not returned, but also I felt better than I had for years.

Those at Life’s 4 Living do not profess to cure anyone. What they do declare is the belief that there can be beneficial effects on health when energy healing is used.

On the subject of the Barefoot Doctor, some may believe that Life’s 4 Living was in error in accepting help from Stephen Russell. But if this is so - and I don’t believe it is - it was a genuine decision, made in good faith. To the best of my knowledge, Stephen Russell has done only good things for the charity and does not deserve to be pilloried by anonymous hucksters. And the fact remains as I stated in my previous posting, Stephen Russell has never had contact with any vulnerable people funded by Life’s 4 Living.

2. The BBC Documentary

Not all treatments or supposed cures work, no matter what tradition the practitioner or doctor comes from (and this includes western medicine). But when an alternative or complementary treatment fails in a particular case, sceptics use it in a way they never dream of when conventional medicine fails. It is used as a stick to damn everything to do with the genre. In other words, they use one anecdote (or at best a very small number, insufficient for research purposes) to make sweeping condemnations and negative judgments, without acknowledging what they are doing as I have in the abovementioned account of my own experience. Even worse, they go on to call into question the good faith of the practitioner, indeed all practitioners. This is exactly what happened in the BBC2 documentary called ‘Kill or Cure’ which Holfordwatch cites at length in its February 22nd posting.

The documentary featured the work of the Energy Bank (now known as the Energy Clinic) with Warwick Powell, who suffered from Aids. Certain of Life’s 4 Living personnel helped establish the Energy Clinic, which is a leading centre for Chinese treatments in London. However, no-one at Life’s 4 Living is employed, formally or informally, by the clinic. Neither is anyone at Life’s 4 Living a director of the clinic, nor does anyone hold any office at the Energy Clinic whatsoever. The charity does employ its services from time to time, as it would any other service provider. The Energy Clinic charges for its services like any other business. Life’s 4 Living does not charge anything, except in a very small number of cases for specific reasons. What Life’s 4 Living does is raise money in order to fund treatment for individuals. The individuals themselves pay nothing.

Whatever one thinks about the quality of the treatment Powell received, he undertook it by his own free choice. Whatever he paid was again his own decision. In fact I am told that he ended up paying far less than the breathless amounts suggested in the programme. Most of the world’s conventional medicine operations charge money. Try being ill in the USA! You either pay through the nose if you’ve got no insurance or if you have, and here’s the greatest scam, you pay every month whether you are sick or not. There are only a few countries which provide universal health care free at the point of delivery. If you don’t have either insurance or money you are likely to be offered a seriously sub-standard service. And it doesn’t matter whether you are cured or not, you still pay.

For instance, a good friend of mine was diagnosed with a sinus complaint which a private surgeon charged him over £5000 to cure. The operation, though, turned out to be a disaster and wreaked further havoc with his sinuses. When other doctors saw the results they were horrified. But not horrified enough to testify against their errant colleague. My friend was still relieved of a large amount of money and his health is compromised to this day.

So the best we can say about the programme (and it is suggested by the show’s title) is that it leaves open the question of whether Powell was unduly influenced to undergo the treatment or if he did everything totally of his own accord with his eyes wide open. Was he killed or was he cured, the title asks. Well, neither actually. Powell currently runs a spa in New Zealand and seems to be doing rather well.

3. Sarah McCrum

I now turn to the subject of Sarah McCrum, who is a trustee of Life’s 4 Living and was instrumental in establishing the Energy Clinic. Uncritically quoting Thomas Sutcliffe (who reviewed Kill or Cure), the document of February 22nd variously describes Ms. McCrum as brainwashed, wicked or a fool. Might there not be another possibility, no matter how much the sceptics might try to avoid it? Could not Ms. McCrum sincerely believe what she says without being brainwashed, without the motive of making money and without being feeble-minded. Even if you don’t believe it, you surely must accept that she might well believe it. You certainly can’t rule the possibility out as Sutcliffe does and Holfordwatch accepts without question.

It is also true that Chinese medicine as practiced by the Energy Clinic does encourage patients to take a proactive role in their treatment, physically, mentally and emotionally. Why should this be so outrageous? Is western medicine’s stance that patients are nothing more than ignorant and passive vessels the last word on the subject? I don’t think so. And if Sarah McCrum believes this, shouldn’t she say so? Shouldn’t she be honest rather than hide her true beliefs? This is a far cry from saying, as the document quotes, that the Clinic’s staff tell patients, “it’s all your fault.”

I am perfectly prepared to concede that the case study mentioned in the document is not the best I have ever seen. Nonetheless, it is not alone in that. Read Sigmund Freud. And he founded a whole discipline which didn’t exist before him and which took some believing by those in the conventional medicine of the time. He was accused in the early days of holding out false cures. Funnily enough, as conventional medicine embraced Freud, his methodology was called into question. If his records were not so tightly controlled by the Institute that bears his name, he might well have acquired an even more tarnished reputation.

Even Holfordwatch accepts that Sarah McCrum did not say that Master Ding cured a patient of stomach cancer. What she does maintain, however, is that energy healing is beneficial over a wide number of conditions. Of those who have undergone the treatments, there are far more who will give testament to their positive outcomes than you would think by reading Holfordwatch. I would say the satisfaction rating is far higher than in conventional medicine.

4. The 20/20 Programme and the Deaths in New Zealand

It is a tragedy when anyone dies. For me, having agreed to compile a response to the references made in the February 22nd document to the television programme 20/20, this was the most important and sensitive issue to address and attempt to resolve. I have therefore conducted my own review of the events. The first thing I did was watch the television show. I then questioned a number of people who were witnesses to the events to get my own take on the situation.

The February 22nd posting states that the programme, among other matters, “discusses the fate of two students who attended the Academy to learn to be healthy. The students rejected conventional medical treatment, one for breast cancer, the other for melanoma. Both students died.”

This sounds as if vulnerable young people were exploited until they died. In fact, the two ‘students’ were long time believers in the power of energy healing. One was in her sixties, the other was 37. The woman who died of breast cancer - Sharon - had been travelling around the world from New Zealand to London, then to Switzerland and finally to Australia, where she died. So, although she was a believer in the power of energy, she was not a student at the Academy when she died. She made an adamant choice to reject conventional treatment until the end and actually died in a hospital. This case is extremely sad, and I doubt whether many of us would be prepared to eschew conventional medicine to that extent. But no-one can say she would not have died if she had been treated anywhere else or if she had chosen a conventional approach, which could have involved a mastectomy. Certainly no blame ever attached to the Academy, apart from an admonition from Sharon’s bereaved daughter, whose desire to find someone to blame for her mother’s death is understandable, That, however does not make her view correct.

Here’s another anecdote. I had a girlfriend (the love of my life) who was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 30. She held no brief for alternative cures and was treated with the best that the US medical system had to offer, at great expense. Numerous doctors told her that she would be cured. She died two years later. Nobody seems to want to investigate these shocking occurrences...
The other student was Janez, who was also a believer in the healing power of energy. Janez similarly decided to forego conventional medicine when he developed melanoma, despite the fact that Aiping Wang, the Grandmaster, suggested he go to hospital. As his condition deteriorated, the Academy deputed a team of 15 people to look after his every need.

When Janez died, it was deemed a sudden death and the New Zealand police were obliged to investigate. Having examined all the evidence there was no suggestion of any charges. As the investigating officer put it: “There was no criminality….Janez was an adult and made his own decisions.”

The two cases are infinitely sad but deaths occur everywhere and at all times. These deaths have been the subject of thorough investigations by television programmes and the police, both of whom have considerable resources, yet no fault was found with the Academy.

The document of 22nd February goes on to list claims made in the programme by four disaffected students. It turned out that two of them were husband and wife. Again, they were not vulnerable young people but adults, all seemingly with strong minds. Remember, this is four from over 200 who spent time studying at the Academy, or 2% of its intake. It seems that the other 98% were more than satisfied. I would suggest that is a far higher percentage than for most comparable organisations.

In addition, the charge that “fanciful claims” were made by Ms. Wang to the effect that she could cure a variety of diseases, teach people to fly and see the future is a twisted version of the truth. Ms. Wang always provides a caveat in her on-screen discussions of what is possible. Anyone is entitled to believe that these things might all be possible using her methods but she says it can occur only if the participant is able to attain a state of the deepest relaxation. And she doesn’t claim to cure either. What she actually said was: “If the person can do it (relax) very well….then any disease can get balance by the life energy.”

Even the presenter of the show, Phil Vine, observes at one point: “Has she (Ms. Wang) done anything wrong, though? These people are consenting adults, they decided that that’s the path that they want to follow, they’re prepared to pay for it….” In response, one of the disaffected ‘students’ replied: “She’s not teaching anything bad….I just feel that it’s not right. I walked away.” Another of the four, who had gone to the Academy with food allergies and a fear of cancer, admitted that the food allergies had been alleviated while she was in New Zealand and had not returned.

The programme did not discuss “whether the teaching of the Academy was dangerous.” There were some vague references to this subject, but they were put more in a kind of devil’s advocate way rather than a true discussion, which would examine the pros and cons. The issues of so-called brainwashing and whether or not the Academy was part of a cult were dealt with very quickly. One person said the term “brainwashing” had been used, which was denied by the Academy. No-one bothered to put forward the classic tests for deciding whether a particular organisation or movement is a cult and check to see if Aiping Wang fitted the test or not. Given that, it was most irresponsible for the programme to raise the point at all.

As for the fees, some of them may appear excessive but the people concerned were happy to pay for something that clearly benefitted their lives. In fact, the vast majority of attendees at the Academy paid nothing. Moreover, no-one, from Ms. Wang down, attempted to avoid answering questions on this (or any other) subject. Nothing was presented which could be described as a “con”.

The adjudication was not as clear-cut as the February 22nd document makes out. It poses questions but gives no definitive answers. Throughout, the Academy personnel were extremely cooperative with the film makers, who were allowed to film where they liked and no questions were off-limits. Sarah McCrum, one of the victims of Holfordwatch’s demonising tendencies, was quite happy to talk about all aspects of the Academy’s work and she didn’t look at all uncomfortable at any stage.

So 20/20 is not quite the damning judgment that Holfordwatch would have us believe. The Phenomena Academy was not proved responsible for the deaths, which I would like to reiterate are still tragic and to be much regretted. The adjudication is simply not what Holfordwatch cracks it up to be.

5. Claire Sutton

The February 22nd document accuses Claire Sutton of an eccentricity of belief, saying she “espouses the belief that healing energy can be transmitted down a phone line and provide relief from a sore throat.” Holfordwatch, attempting to quote from ‘What’s the Bleep’ but getting it wrong, has Ms Sutton saying: “We spoke to people afterwards (an energy session conducted by phone) and they (the participants) said they felt absolutely fantastic. Someone with a sore throat said it immediately disappeared.”

Claire Sutton has said no such thing.

6. Corporate Sponsors

Holfordwatch seems to imply that having corporate sponsors enables Life’s 4 Living to gain the trust of future participants when that trust is undeserved. In fact, Life’s 4 Living is merely being transparent, allowing all information about itself to be out there and for people to make up their own minds. If Holfordwatch’s anonymous contributors were half as open to scrutiny as Life’s 4 Living, we could see whether their ravings actually have any credibility. Or perhaps if they were to take on the real bad guys, the multi-national pharmaceutical industry, with the same missionary zeal that they bring to anything alternative, we might even forgive them their frightened secrecy. Today, for instance, I note that The Guardian is reporting the allegation that one of the major drug companies in world, GlaxoSmithKline, failed for some time to report the fact that one its most successful drugs, the anti-depressant, Seroxat, “increased the likelihood of suicide among teenagers.” It’s a shame that Holfordwatch, instead of going after these monsters, would rather employ the schoolboyishly brash Quackometer, with its shades of Hughie (and I mean that most sincerely, folks) Green.

The fact is, many corporations whose workers have benefitted from Chinese treatments are now extremely interested in following up the exercise with more. City corporations are not known for continuing to use something for which they receive no benefit, something which doesn’t work.

7. Connections

Holfordwatch indulges in that old canard – guilt by association. So on Planet Holfordwatch anyone at Life’s 4 Living who has any connection to the Energy Clinic, or Takaro Lodge in New Zealand is automatically suspect. Let’s be absolutely clear again. Some of the people who attended the New Zealand Academy and helped in the formation of the Energy Clinic are now central to the operation of Life’s 4 Living. But if Holfordwatch really believes the New Zealand Academy and the Energy Clinic are so bad, how can it criticise those who are no longer connected to these two institutions but have set up a bona fide charity which seeks to help sick people for no charge?

All in all, the claims made in the February 22nd posting are loud, confident - and wrong. Some, like the quote attributed to Claire Sutton, are manifestly and totally wrong. Others, like the claim that Aiping Wang’s comments amount to a statement that her methods can cure any disease are wildly exaggerated.

I’m sure none of this will satisfy the zealots of the health-police at Holfordwatch. They responded to my previous posting by shooting the messenger – me. I wonder whether they can bring themselves to look a little more rationally at this posting. I’m not holding my breath but it would be nice.

Lynton Guest: March 2008

Holfordwatch & Life’s 4 Living

Third Response

This is my penultimate posting. Since my last post, which dealt with the Holfordwatch document of February 22nd, there have been a number of replies. My final post will deal with some of the more interesting responses received so far. 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? To you I say, if I had been brief, I’m sure you would have complained that I failed to answer the points Holfordwatch has raised. Now I’ve responded point by point I’m told it’s too long. Sometimes, you just can’t win.
The second point 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.
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’m sure that most of you out there understand the technology better than I so I hope you understand what I’m saying more than I do. The process perhaps explains why, when I refer to the Barefoot Doctor having no direct role with Life’s 4 Living Trust patients, Holfordwatch has difficulty in accepting the fact. 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. So can I state once and for all that Stephen Russell had no contact with any vulnerable people helped by Life’s 4 Living and any impression that he did is due to the wrong posting referred to above. Life’s 4 Living Trust apologises for the mistake but it raises another important matter to which I would like to refer. 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. By not doing so, a serious misunderstanding occurred, even though, by the time the first of the three documents was posted, the wrong pdf had long been removed.

Now I can address the central point of this posting. A further set of accusations levelled at Life’s 4 Living by Holfordwatch. The allegations in the document entitled: ‘Life’s 4 Living: bizarre energy-medicine ‘cure’ for MS’, posted on February 25th 2008, are as follows.

1) That Life’s 4 Living presents a “highly stereotyped attitude to Chinese people.”

2) That the charity displays an “unfounded denigration of evidence-based medicine.”

3) That there are “unjustified claims to cure MS”.

4) That demands were made “for young people and their families to commit a lot of time and money.”

5) That Life’s 4 Living chose MS to treat because the condition naturally goes into remission.

6) That the people the charity wanted to treat were not ill enough.

7) That Life’s 4 Living is “not an appropriate organisation to be treating vulnerable young people.”

The first three points relate to the supposed attitudes and behaviour on the part of Life’s 4 Living Trust. Thus the use of hyperbolic adjectives such as ‘stereotyped’, ‘unfounded’ and ‘unjustified’. The remaining four points deal with the activities of Life’s 4 Living Trust in relation to the MS programme.

1. Stereotyped attitudes.

If anyone displayed the attitude described in the February 25th document they could indeed be labelled as people who stereotype. To describe Life’s 4 Living Trust thus is a caricature. Nobody at Life’s 4 Living Trust so much as entertains the beliefs as allocated via Holfordwatch’s unique interpretation of the facts. 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.

But wait a minute. The very people at Holfordwatch who accuse Life’s 4 Living Trust of stereotyping had this to say in their document called: Barefoot, Sex, Sleaze and Life’s 4 Living. Having advised families of people visiting China for treatment to, take “cattle-prods” with them, they go on to state that “….China is one of the few countries where the liberal therapeutic application of electricity is not frowned upon as much as it might be elsewhere.”

I’m content to let the reader decide who is stereotyping here.

2. Evidence-based medicine.

This is a euphemism. I urge everyone to read Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column in The Guardian of March 8 2005 to see exactly how evidence is manipulated in the health industry (notwithstanding the views expressed by Reality Check). Holfordwatch’s embrace of this term shows an alarming penchant for dissembling, of which I accused them in my First Response of March 1st, 2008.

Life’s 4 Living Trust doesn’t denigrate western medicine, rather it believes that it is a valuable contribution to the world. It’s just that Life’s 4 Living Trust doesn’t think that is the end of the story. There are other traditions which can contribute as much to people’s well-being as western medicine. But to call western medicine ‘evidence-based’ is nonsense. It is as much assertion-based as any other system. It is merely dressed-up as evidence-based. The new label is like the Emperor’s new clothes.

This is the system that brought us more than a few catastrophes: thalidomide, EST and lobotomy to name but three. To be fair, it has also brought us heart-bypass operations, MRI scans and insulin. But that just goes to show that it doesn’t work in all cases. There is far more to it than this interpretation allows for and pretending it is all based on the evidence is to wilfully mislead. More and more people are coming to this view.

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.

Here’s another example. The drug giant Pfizer presumably releases new drugs onto the market based on evidence of benefit, including prolonged trials. The New York based company is currently being sued for damages allegedly caused by the drugs Celebrex and Bextra. Both belong to the same class of inhibitors as Vioxx, which itself was withdrawn in September 2004 because of fears it had caused thousands of heart attacks and strokes. Not long afterwards, Bextra was also withdrawn from sale. Once again I ask: why does Holfordwatch fail to show the same attitude towards organisations like Pfizer that it does to charities like Life’s 4 Living?

A statement in the document of February 25th reads: Most GPs should now be aware of the role of stress etc. in causing headaches….“it is unlikely that seeing a GP with a headache would lead to one being given prescription painkillers rather than advice to use OTC painkillers amongst other recommendations.”

Oh really! Well, at least Holfordwatch uses the conditional “should” rather than the more definite “are”.

3. Unjustified Claims

Holfordwatch states: “I’m not sure why Traditional Chinese Medicine should be viewed as natural”. Let me tell them. Natural is used to describe non-invasive and non- toxic or drug-based treatment. I hope that’s clear.

The February 25th document goes on to say: “However, L4L conspicuously fail to mention any research showing that their approach to treatment is useful.” The pdf I presume Holfordwatch is using here is not a document whose purpose is to present research. In any case, Holfordwatch doesn’t really mean ‘research’, it means only that sort of research which it suits western medicine to include. Neither was it the intention of the document to attempt to ‘prove’ the existence of Qi. It was there to talk about a Life’s 4 Living Trust programme, viz, the treatment of MS sufferers in China over a one to three month period.

The document goes on to berate Life’s 4 Living for making a “completely unjustified and irresponsible promise to the young people….” Life’s 4 Living Trust does not “promise” to do anything other than devise the programme and provide the funds. For an answer to the so-called “get-out clause” see my discussion of proactivity in my last posting, A Second Response. Moreover, the February 25th document makes a virtue of the fact that MS is incurable by western medicine. According to Holfordwatch, this closes down any possible alternative to western medicine being offered up, even though, being unable to provide a cure itself, western medicine should surely encourage the participation of differing approaches.

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. If they don’t, then hope need not disappear. This holds true for all types of treatment. Furthermore, a good percentage of terminally ill patients are still told by conventional medicine that they will get better and go home.” Perhaps not as much as in the past, but a significant proportion nevertheless.

But Holfordwatch seems now to be subscribing to the idea that “hope can be worse than hopelessness”. It quotes “emergent research” to support this contention. ‘Emergent’ here actually means ‘not very much’. The study referred to concerned the wearers of colostomy bags. It purports to demonstrate that those who accept that they will never again be free from the bag were more satisfied with their lives than those who had hope that they would get better.

There is so much wrong with the way Holfordwatch has interpreted this I really don’t know where to begin. First, the study was an extremely small one and has not, so far as I am aware, been replicated. Second, any measure of ‘life satisfaction’ depends on the completion of questionnaires by the patients and as such has more in common with the advertising industry or focus groups than science. ‘Life satisfaction’ is something that cannot be clinically observed or measured. Third, you really cannot compare a tiny study of one condition and speculate that it applies to some other condition, less still all conditions, which is what Holfordwatch seeks to do in citing this research. Fourth…..oh never mind.

4. Demands for Time and Money

It is worth quoting the Life’s 4 Living pdf in full on these points. In the section ‘About Finances’, it says:

“Each individual will be expected to stay in China until they receive significant improvement in their life-quality. It is an estimated time of 1-3 months.
Life’s 4 Living Trust Ltd. is willing to cover the vast majority of these costs. However we do ask that each participant makes a small financial contribution – i.e. flights or a % of accommodation. This can be negotiated on an individual basis. If the participant is unable to do this, we are willing to look at other options, including repayment over a period of time, or a work for the charity upon their return. The reason we ask for this commitment, is to filter out applicants who are simply looking for a ‘free holiday’. It is very important for us, that all participants fully partake in and respect the programme of treatments that we have arranged for them.”

I think that speaks for itself.

5. Choice of MS

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. The answer to that is that Life’s 4 Living operates programmes covering a variety of conditions. But in any event, Holfordwatch could use the same argument to criticise anyone who chooses to treat MS patients, including doctors. 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. 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.”

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. And since conventional medicine has such little ability to control or cure the condition, should not the possibilities offered by Life’s 4 Living Trust be embraced and encouraged, not attacked?

6. Participants not Ill Enough

According to the February 25th document, Life’s 4 Living Trust “will only take those who are at the less ill end of the spectrum.” This is a total misreading of the true position, born, I believe, of Holfordwatch’s prejudice rather than an objective reading of the facts. Life’s 4 Living simply did not want anybody who was on medication or had recently undergone a surgical procedure to participate in the programme. The reason for this is obvious if you are not biased. Asking people to suspend medication or taking those who are recovering from an invasive procedure to China would be irresponsible and would really be the wrong thing to do to vulnerable people. It is as simple as that.

7. Is Life’s 4 Living Trust an Appropriate Organisation?

The whole tenor of the three documents, but especially the one dealt with here is to cast doubts on the appropriateness of Life’s 4 Living Trust to be the lead organisation in seeking to help people with alternative methods. Hopefully, the openness displayed by the charity in answering the baseless charges outlined by Holfordwatch and the testimonies of those already helped will give the lie to that.

Simply using a distorted version of the truth, failing to put any allegations direct to the charity, putting forward a biased version of television programmes (themselves hardly a reliable guide), indulging in reckless speculation and using guilt by association do not make for proper allegations.

In conclusion, I hope I have shown that not only is Life’s 4 Living Trust an appropriate organisation to run the China programme but that it is one of a very few organisations who could do it, with no public money and little or nothing paid by the participants. As such, the charity should be supported in its efforts, not denigrated.

I intend to make one further posting. In it I shall address some of the replies that have been posted following my responses and deal with another series of questions posted by Jonhw.

Lynton Guest: March 2008

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.

Yes and yes
The Barefoot Doctor helped with fundraising events. He has now resigned. He did not work with clients.
Part of the point of all Life’s 4 Living programmes is to help provide such proof or otherwise.
Yes
No
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

We have received the following comments from Ben Goldacre, Bad Science correspondent of The Guardian:

From: Ben Goldacre
Sent: 03 March 2008 20:02
To: Claire Sutton
Subject: Re: Hello from Life's 4 Living

Hi Claire,

Just to remind you that I've not had an email back in response to my queries.

FYI I've taken the time to post the text below on Holfordwatch, it might be useful for you to post it on your site too. I'm not desperately interested in the Holfordwatch material but obviously I need to clarify on the points you raise.

Hoping you can give me a brief answer to my query re your discussions before deciding to work with Russell and children if possible.

Ben

2)

Ben Goldacre // March 3, 2008 at 9:02 pm

If Life’s 4 Living wish to know whether I am involved Holfordwatch then they need only ask. I am not.
For the record, I also have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the activities of Life’s 4 Living.
I contacted them in passing, simply because I am writing about the regulation of alternative therapies, which will doubtless be a big story this year. The Barefoot Doctor, Stephen Russell, has acknowledged having sex with former patients. This is the kind of activity which regulators are involved in offering guidance on, and I simply asked what steps L4L took to review the issue when they began to work with him, in the absence of a formal framework regulating his profession.
So far the only response from Life’s 4 Living has been, confusingly, to deny that it is even an issue, and to state twice that Russell has no patient contact through their organisation.
This is despite announcing that they are making a film in which they will be sending a group of 10 children 5 - 21 years old to China for 3 months accompanied by Stephen Russell.
http://www.lifes4living.org/documents/The-Lifes-4-Living-Film.pdf
I should be clear that I have absolutely no view on whether this is problematic. I was simply asking what mechanisms they had in place, what discussions took place before making the decision, and so on.
I can only say I’m very surprised to see how this has progressed.

bengoldacre // March 6, 2008 at 12:07 am

This is fantastic, it is the prototypical quackery discussion thread, and must be preserved for all time in some kind of internet museum.

For Life’s 4 Living Responses to Ben Goldacre please see the above articles