I was thinking of blogging about something other than homeopathy and the SoH but yesterday (6 November) I finally received a reply to my complaint about Sue Young, so I thought I’d share it with you. I’ll type it in green with my comments in the usual black for contrast.
Dear Mr Hawcock
Re. Sue Young
Further to your letter expressing concerns about the Blog written by Sue Young, I have received a response from her.
I have enclosed her response for your information.
I do not believe that Ms Young intended to mislead, and I understand she has a disclaimer printed on all pages of her blog highlighting that the information is not a substitute for medical advice or opinion
She does? Must be new because it never used to be there. And note Patricia Moroney “understands” this to be the case. Has she not checked for herself?
I have spoken with Ms Young at some length as there seems to have been some misunderstanding in the interpretation of the articles.
That may be true but to come to this conclusion she should have discussed it with me also. She did not.
I apologise for the delay in responding.
Professional Conduct Officer
Society of Homeopaths
Okay. On too Sue Young’s response:-
25 September 2007 [interesting. This is a week before Moroney wrote to me in response to my prompt to say she was "still investigating" but after she would have received said prompt]
Thank you for our phone conversation yesterday.
In response to your letter 25.7.07: [This is a week after Moroney had written to me asking where I thought Young was in breach of the Code of Ethics but a week before I had sent in my written complaint. So even though she had told me that she couldn't investigate until I had sent in my written complaint, she was discussing it with Sue Young.]
My web blog about iatrogenic disease dated 2.7.07 includes links to some websites:
Sufferers of Iatrogenic Neglect UK
“Iatrogenic illness: a primer for nurses. (Professiona Practice). Dermatology Nursing, February, 2002 by Dawn M. Cook “The term 2iatrogenic illness” was first coined by Bleuler in his 1924 Textbook of Psychiatry (see Bleuler, 1936). At that time he used it to refer to a patient’s distress brought on by a physician’s incorrect diagnosis. In Bleuler’s scenario, the poor patient is literally “worried sick” by an early and incorrect dire prognosis.” Read more Literally meaning “physician-induced”, the term iatrogenic describes diseases inadvertently resulting from medical treatments or procedures. Iatrogenic comes from the Greek and simply means “caused by doctors”
The blog also linked to a number of sites that go on at great length about the number of patients allegedly killed by conventional medicine. She seems to have forgotten to include that.
My web blog about suppression dated 9.7.07 mentioned a quote from George Vithoulkas:
George Vithoulkas awarded the Right Livelihood Award 1996 argues the Homeopathic case and talks openly about iatrogenic illness and drug suppression of symptoms: “…with the massive way antibiotics are being prescribed they are going to destroy the immune system. It is going to be open to new diseases, that are going to be incurable. AIDS is a disease which we have created.”
Antibiotics do not destroy the immune system. Failure to complete courses of antibiotics has resulted in the evolution of resistant strains. AIDS is viral, not bacterial so antibiotics have not affected iits evolution in any way. His last sentence must be music to the ears of the likes of Thabo Mbeki.
The only other comment I made about AIDS was when asked ‘if I had AIDS would I use homeopathy?’ to which I replied ‘yes’.
Superburger - if I got AIDS – yes I would use homeopathy. I have been to seminars at the London Lighthouse where this was done and I have spoken to practitioners and patients alike. I do not know if there has been any summation of their work because they suffered drug company attack over ATZ as described in Dirty Medicine http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/emma_holister/2004/12/07/dirty_medicine_now_available.htm and it all got very nasty indeed, especially as AZT didn’t work out so well http://www.aegis.com/pubs/atn/1986/ATN00401.html
You must understand that people will do what they want to do and it is not compulsory to take AIDS drugs, nor is it against the law to try alternatives. http://www.homeopathic.com/downloads/HIVarticle32703.pdf
First we have the Big Pharma conspiracy to explain the lack of positive results, then we have the compulsion strawman. Nobody is talking about compelling people to take drugs. What I was talking about was the fact that this passage appears to flout the SoH ban on even implying cures for named diseases and Young does not address this point at all.
The only comment I made about Malaria is that other countries use homeopathy to treat it and that homeopaths treat it in India
Regarding your second letter dated 13.8.07 enclosing the letter from John Hawcock:
About mercury I said:
As I have said before, our Public Health Department knows that mercury is a poison in large amounts so they fill our children’s teeth with it. [To me this sounds like she is accusing the public health authorities of poisoning children] They know fluoride is dangerous in large amounts, so they[the Public Health Department?] manufacture it and use trace amounts to ‘benefit’ our health (isn’t that a homeopathic principle?[No, because homeopathic remedies do not contain trace amounts, they contain nothing]) They have known for years that salt is dangerous in large amounts, so they add far too much to our food [the 'Public Health Department' does not actually put additives in our food. The manufacturers do], such that we have to have a TV campaign to get them to withdraw it. They also know that sugar is dangerous in large amounts so they [as above] add far too much to our food such that we have a massive obesity problem. They know that sugar substitute is dangerous, so they sell it all around the world? How does ‘science’ answer this? These people were fit and well before they went to their dentists or ate their dinner.
It’s not ‘science’ putting the additives in either, it’s the manufacturers. It was science that discovered the problem. And note that she repeats her assertion that dentists are making people ill. Moroney must accept this as she does not address it in her letter to me.
The underlines are links to sites where people were reporting symptoms from these products and to self help groups for people seeking help after having problems with these products. I was just reporting information from the web. The ‘toxic tap water’ is a reference to the fluoride reference above.
The statement from my black friend was part of a reply I made when I talked about the comments my clients were making to the abuse on my website:
Sue Young persistantly refers to abuse. As far as I can tell, she considers any disagreement, no matter how politely expressed, to be abusive. I know posts of mine that pointed out people in South Africa were dying because they were not getting antiretrovirals and were resorting to useless alternatives, were deleted for breaching her POO rules.
“My client’s comments – ‘well you are just up against a lot of white males (even the women) [eh?] with vested interests’ [it may spoil Young's conspiracy theory but my degree is in physics and I receive not a penny from Big Pharma] and ‘have these people ever left school?’ and ‘they can’t get at the ethnics anymore and you were their primary food source for a thousand years before they found Africa’ and ‘what a bunch of reincarnated inquisitors’ [since Young does not believe in being abusive, I can only assume that this passes for polite discourse in her circles. I'm so glad I don't move in them] and (from a black male friend) ‘I know you take your healing very seriously Sue, but you are just wasting your time. This lot cannot be reasoned with and we will just have to have a final solution to the white race eventually – just look at what they have done to the planet in the last thousand years.’ [indicating a particular race is a problem and advocating a final solution for said race. Who does that remind you of?] My friend’s final solution is HOMEOPATHY! [She never quotes him as actually saying this, so I am left with the impression that this is the spin she puts on his offensive remark] Only homeopathy treats the desire to go to war and enslave people as a pathology! We treat thiis as the illness that it is! Only homeopathy treats the need to have a victim as pathology. We treat this as an illness! Only homeopathy treats the desire to bully others as a pathology! We treat this as an illness!”
All I can say about this is that it puts Big Pharma’s “Pill for every ill” policy to shame. Even they don’t claim to have the remedy for war.
My black friend is married to a homeopath and he was referring to homeopathy as the final solution to all the abuse in the World. His point was that the desire to abuse and enslave others is a pathology and should be treated as such.
The abuse from commentors to my web sitehas been a live issue in my practice amongst my patients. [I have looked back on the pages I have saved from her website and I see no abuse. Some disagree with her and state why but that is not abuse] Stoke Newington and Hackney where my practice is based is an ethnically mixed area and a lot of my clients are black. One of them is a black female Barrister who was instrumental in setting up the Black Lawyers Directory, and another black female client has been running the Abolition of Slavery Anniversary we recently celebrated, and she has worked for a London Museum in this area for the last four years. My clients identified the abuse from the commentors very early and they called it racism, and when I mentioned this to my commentors I was accused of ‘adopting the victim stance’. [and my wife is a black South African, lived through apartheid and knows from first-hand experience what racism really is. She does not think that word can be applied to me. Can we move on?]
I was trained in anti racist work by ILEA back in the early 1980s, and this information is on my CV on my web site. This was picked up on by the Ben Goldacre crowd when they discovered my web blog on Dignity and Respect 2 dated 25.8.06 [I think what the "crowd" picked up on was that the Equality legislation does not in fact prevent us criticising homeopathy and Sue Young's exhortation that we "Wave to the Government Ministers!"]
The Dignity and Respect 2 web blog dated 25.8.06 reads thus:
“It is now law in this country to behave with dignity and respect towards each other. This is how it should be! All companies and workplaces must have a policy that expresses a zero tolerance towards abusive behaviour.
There then follows the zero tolerance document displayed in her local GP surgery. I won’t quote it as this post is already too long and there’s nothing to disagree with in it. I just find it bizarre that someone who claims to live by this worthy document can use the term “final solution” in a race relation context.
I was certainly not endorsing any incitement to race hatred and neither was my black friend. John Hawcock has twisted this round against me in his letter to you, [have I? I've quoted her verbatem above, what do you think?] one of the more interesting tactics employed by Ben Goldacre’s crowd, [again with the Ben Goldacre thing. Just for the record, I am a regular on the Bad Science Forum but Dr Goldacre has nothing to do with my complaint] of which theyu have so many!
I have already quoted from the statement I made that if I got AIDS I would use homeopathy, and I cannot see what is wrong with agreeing that AIDS is a syndrome, that HIV causes AIDS or stating that I would use homeopathy for it if I contracted it.
However, I have not made any statements as far as I am aware about syphilis and I have computer searched all of my web blog documents and find there is no mention of this anywhere. He just slipped that one in I suppose?
Actually, I didn’t. I was quoting from post no.14 in the debate following Parliament of Owls 3:2007 Suppression.
I hope that I have addressed all the necessary points.