by Bodwyn Wook
ON BBC Radio 4, to-day, a lot of noise was made about the fact that Prince Charles has spoken up publicly in support of what in England now is referred to as ‘complementary’ medicine. This is a stoat’s adjective, of course, for such things as homeopathy, herbal tinctures, vitamin-supplements and so forth; and, predictably, a claque, or faction, of thirteen or so allopaths (sociopaths would be more like it–I speak here neutrally, a [retired] police-official merely) uttered a letter condemning the ideas of the heir to the throne; and, using of course all the disinformative lingo at their professionalist disposal, of ‘unscientific’, ‘not proven’, references regardless of obscenity to the ‘well-being of our (NB) patients’ & cet.
Historically, the pattern is universally the same:
Whenever any quackery raises itself to respectability and joins the presbyterian church (and gets in on the bath of public money), all other aspirants then become automatically the new thieves, predators on the suffering of others, and mirabile visu the new quacks. Never in any of this exercise in blackguarding the competition do we hear or read used the terms monopolists and assholes, however.
On the BBC’s ‘PM’ programme accordingly the calls and ‘e-mails’ rolled in. Among those supporting the official racket, one docile civilian complained that HRH Prince of Wales is ‘untrained’ in these matters. Another (perhaps prompted by the GP, whilst visiting in his surgery) said something about the ‘placebo-effect’. The entire rhodomontade was entire in its illegitimacy as, in fact, every point adduced was only some ad hominem remark or other, nothing more nor less.
THUS, And inasmuch as someone needed to direct the ray of (un!) common good sense on to the whole affair, I placed the following submission into the computer, for transmission to the BBC. In due course, I received an automatic confirmation of receipt; and, it was said in that text, that my sage remarks, unexceptionable in their sagacity, and thus complete and objective, and hence final, in their utter and eternal disposal of this non-matter, would be ‘drawn’ to the attention of the programme-producers.
And there I can predict confidently the whole matter will die the death. After all (and, to paraphrase Mussolini’s son-in-law Count Ciano, he writing over sixty years ago, albeit under but-slightly other authoritarian conditions):
‘LIES Have a thousand fathers–the truth is an orphan always’.
23 May 2006
TO Whom & cet:
I Live in Minnesota in the no-longer-particularly-United States and like so many here have NO health insurance.
I Depend on exercise, diet, self-management and, indeed, homeopathy to keep my health. At 57 I do 50 press-ups, pull-ups and so on and so forth….
AS To the “official” doctors, officious criticism by their supporters of Prince Charle’s “lack of credentials,”–and all the rest of the name-calling!–is just irrelevant.
THAT Includes saying that homeopaths have a “financial interest” in the debate–in what respect, then, do these characters DIFFER from more orthodox medical-types?
FINALLY, As to the so-called “placebo-effect,” anybody riding the CAT-scan machine is just as dependent on the facts of psycholgy as me, myself, clutching my pills & potions–ALL good health is at bottom a matter of belief in WHATEVER works.
[ARGUABLY, As we all die in the end (thank God!), we can only say NO medicine really “works” (except for a BIT AT A TIME) after all.]
s/B Wook, CC (ret’d)
[Emmett R Smith all rights reserved 23 May 2006]