Read it and Judge for Yourself

[news.omega]

[Omega Group]

Better to read:
FYI,

http://www.zeusinfoservice.com/Articles/defense2.html

Martin

Read it and Judge for Yourself

by Martin J. Walker - 6.1.08

On the Guardian Comment is Free (CiF) internet pages on Saturday
January 5,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/05/1 there was an
exchange about my recent short book, Cultural Dwarfs and Junk
Journalism: Dr Ben Goldacre, Quackbusting and Corporate Science. As I
pointed out in the pre-publication publicity this was the fourth book
I have written which follows the growth of the corporate science lobby
and the intervention of vested interests in medical and science
policy. This Lobby has grown more influential and become more
effective since New Labour came to power in 1997.
I have no intention of joining in this hand-grenade bun fight on the
internet pages of The Guardian. I am a part of the serious opposition
to the corporate science lobby and have no intention of getting
involved in vituperate exchanges on their turf. As in the paper
itself, on the CiF site, the editors and owners of the Guardian sit
back surveying the wreckage that Goldacre is causing without the
feeling the need for any critical intervention.
I have chosen to make my remarks about the exchanges on (CiF) and the
whole position of the Guardian newspaper, in the Zeus newsletter and
the One Click site. I would be pleased if people were to circulate
this brief defence of my book on as many sites as possible.
I am under no illusion about the problems inherent in tackling the
subjects that I have chosen to investigate and write about. The people
and organisations I have looked at are immensely powerful and care
nothing about using any tactics to foreclose the opposition. When I
wrote and then published Dirty Medicine, Duncan Campbell at that time
a member of the Campaign Against Health Fraud (now called HealthWatch)
managed, with the judicious use of solicitors letters that I had
already answered and nullified, to frighten retailers into not
stocking the book, some journals into not publishing reviews and
finally the books printers into not printing a second edition. The
'straight' world published no reviews of the book, and it was
effectively left uncommented upon in all the 'straight' media. Years
after its publication Jerome Burne managed to get a story in the
Guardian magazine that looked in an unbiased manner at the content of
the book.
I did find out not long after the book was published that lobbying
organisations and orthodox medical Institutions and groups, especially
those that contained lobby members, had decided on a policy of not
mentioning the book in any manner. As it happened the then Chair of
HealthWatch, Thurston Brewen, did give notice of another strategy
which was then being resolved. Speaking after a radio programme with
one of the other participants who asked about the book, he said
venomously that it was a 'Nazi book'. At the time, I couldn't really
understand this but later when Duncan Campbell told an interviewer
that I was funded by pharmaceutical companies, I began to catch on.
The lobby will first do anything to avoid any critical mention of my
work, if they fail in this they will try and dismiss it with
outrageous lies while refusing to address the content. In 2003, I
wrote SKEWED, a book predominately about those people and
organisations who have suggested that people with ME, CFS or Gulf War
Syndrome had 'false illness beliefs' and were actually mentally ill. I
called a press conference launch for this book at a London Hotel and
though some fifty activists and interested parties attended only one
journalist from the Ecologist turned up and he later refused to write
a review. It occurred to me after this that the psychiatric members of
the industrial science lobby have immense power.
My book Brave New World of Zero Risk, likewise received no reviews in
the 'straight media'. Which brings me to the publication last Tuesday
of my latest book Cultural Dwarfs and Junk Journalism: Ben Goldacre,
quackbusting and corporate science. This book evidently presented new
problems for the corporate science lobby, because as in all good
political confrontations, the tidal wave of disgust at Goldacre and
the Guardian had grown over the last couple of years with the Guardian
pursuing a kind of Animal Farm policy of complete support for Goldacre
that allowed no critical dissent on its pages.
It was no surprise to me that after only two days of the book being on
the Slingshot site, there had been almost 3,000 (after 5 days 5,000)
downloads and on other sites the number of downloads had been even
greater. Nor was it any surpise that I immediately received a number
of emails from individuals who were grateful that I had published
their point of view that had previously been all but censored. But I
still wondered what the Guardian would do about the book, because
after all a major part of it criticised the newspaper for allowing
Goldacre to write propaganda for industrial interests without a murmur
about journalistic standards.
On Saturday January 5, I found out what the Guardian would do. Under
the guise of some kind of democratic intervention in the newspaper,
they now have Comment is Free (CiF), a slogan that is meant to suggest
that the Guardian has thrown open its pages to anyone who would wish
to make critical comment. In effect it is quite the opposite, for the
internet site actually estranges serious critics from the content of
the newspaper itself. Nothing in CiF has any effect upon editors or
provokes any real public response on behalf of the newspaper.
On January 5, CIF was almost entirely preoccupied with an exchange
about Cultural Dwarfs. In this exchange, of course the Guardian
escaped without a scratch, which after all is one of the purposes of
CiF. What stands out most however, is that those who were determined
to wreck my reputation and destroy any understanding of the book, did
what they do best, misrepresented the book and tried outrageously to
draw attention away from its content.
There were two types of response on the CiF, those who supported my
work and more specifically for the arguments that I put forward in the
book, submitted measured rational pieces. Those who for whatever
undisclosed reason were ultra critical of the books publication, who
would not counternance any of its content, refused to offer any
discussion of this content. While one might well have expected this,
it was the poisonous way in which they tried to deflect attention that
proved that they were people with some maligned purpose, who, and one
has got to be honest about this, suffer varying degrees of mental
incapacity.
There follows some of the comments of this later group. This comment
below appears to be confusingly the mildest of the destructive
strategists.
"Thanks for the posting the link to the "Slingshot publications"
book, Clifford G Miller - but I'm confused:

The book you recommend to us refers to what it describes as: "the
unproven science of HIV and AIDS-related illnesses", and describes the
much-ridiculed AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg as "one of the world's
leading virologists"... The book also seems to contain an endorsement
of the conspiracy theorist Matthias Rath, who has campaigned against
the public provision of anti-HIV drugs in South Africa and whose
website speaks for itself. Do you really think that a book like that
deserves to be taken seriously?"

I have noticed recently that critics of my work, have frequently
turned to an argument, which when boiled down, amounts to this: Walker
is an HIV & AIDS denialist, therefore we should believe nothing he
writes. I find this approach very interesting mainly because it is
founded on absolute untruth and can only be built using specious false
arguments.
While I was writing my book Dirty Medicine and afterwards I worked
with campaigning gay organizations that questioned the licensing,
prescription and use of the drug AZT which was manufactured at that
time by the Wellcome Foundation. AZT was, as many people have pointed
out, a classically 'bad' drug. With others I campaigned against the
marketing techniques used by the Wellcome Foundation that persuaded
gay aids groups, often with generous grant funding to back and promote
AZT.
As for the argument that HIV doesn't cause Aids related illnesses, I
never have aligned myself with any argument that denies a link between
the HIV virus and later AIDS related illnesses. I could however follow
enough of the science to understand that the matter is exceptionally
complex and there are no simple explanations as to how HIV came to be
in the public health pool, how it is passed between people, who is
affected by it and who is not and finally whether or not co-factors
exist that give rise to some people dying very quickly while other
continue to be 'long-term survivors' for decades after testing
positive. As a sceptic I obviously feel the need to ask and find
answers for such important questions.
In relation to South Africa and AIDS, I am utterly opposed to the
pharmaceutical companies using the poor of Africa as fodder for
pharmaceutical experiments of any kind, or to them off-loading useless
or unregulated out of date drugs, in African countries. And as any
sane person would, I tend toward the argument that it is prevention:
sanitary public conditions, good water and nutrition and a relief from
poverty that have to be the first building blocks in conquering
disease in Africa or anywhere else in the world.
But why should I feel the need to explain my point of view on such
matters? Perhaps it is sufficient, just to comment on this
contributors last line (Do you really think that a book like that
deserves to be taken seriously?) Presumably he actually means 'Do you
really think a book like that deserves to be read?' Perhaps it might
be better just to burn the internet.
The comment above, is one of the best thought out and most rational of
those that appeared against the book on the CiF site. If we want to
know how the tree swinging corporate science advocated who are In Bed
With Ben reason through the question, we have to look at someone like
Sukie Bapswent:
That book, of which I have just read the first 30 pages, is an
absolutely huge load of balls. The author, just like you Clifford, is
incapable of engaging on the same terms as Dr Goldacre's almost
invariably watertight, evidence based analysis. Furthermore, it is
rife with heresay, paranoia and conspiracy, second guessing, ad
hominem attacks, and unpleasant insinuations. In short, it is a crock
of shit. Enjoy.

Well what can I say Sukie, I'm certainly glad you enjoyed the first 30
pages what you'll have to say about the rest of the book hovers on the
edge of my mind as one of the great questions facing post industrial
civilization. Have a happy life and may all your projects be crocks of
shit as worthwhile as mine.
Unfortunately Sukie forgot to pen her end point criticism in that
first contribution, the one that goes like a spear to the heart, and
that she had been instructed by her masters to put at the beginning.
After further thought she contributed a PS:
Oh, and badly written, and grammatically moronic.

I wonder where we would be without scientific commentators of such
acumen and intellectual perspicacity. Oh, and such good writers. I
began to phrase a question asking what a 'moronic grammatically' was
but then I thought, 'I can't descend to this at my age it gives me
back pain'.
I particularly enjoyed this contribution from Briscorant with its
cloudy post modern feminist style. I find the theory about 'spurned
lovers' fascinating and wish that Briscorant would contribute a quick
monograph on the subject to a serious literary journal.
The e-book referred to, won't help you understand the issues either.
It is based on two dishonest methods of argument.
First, it regards scientific comments, as merely political statements:
ie arbitrary pronouncements driven mainly by a person's political
views and allegiances. This is simply a dishonest way to view science,
which teaches, and expects, high regard for the truth. See the first
conclusion, first paragraph.
The second is ad hominem - ie attack an opponent's position, not by
addressing the issues, but by attacking the opponent's character. This
is obvious from a quick scan of the document. Again, not helpful for
making progress in human understanding of things.
I've occasionally encountered stuff like this before. The authors tend
to be spurned lovers, and cheated-on partners. There's a pretence at
rationality, but the text rambles, the viciousless and bitterness
blaze clear. Most such authors, however, are wise enough to tear it up
afterwards. They do not footnote, add nine appendices, then publish on
the internet.

I will just say in passing that I haven't been spurned in a long
while, although these readers constantly running from the content of
my work does make me feel in a kind of post-modern experiential way, a
little like being rejected, could it be that this is what steers my
style, am I a masochist?
The prize for propaganda, however, must go, to the 'Porking' Professor
Colquhoun late of London University.
Aha I see Martin Walker's self-published free book has been mentioned.
With friends like Walker, the alternative medicine industry certainly
has no need of enemies. I have never seen so many errors of fact in
such a short document. It promises to unearth a great conspiracy, but
fails to unearth anything.
One of the more amusing bits is that Walker seems to think that the
Wellcome Trust make AZT. The Trust does not, and never has made any
drug.

Colquhoun says that everything I say about him in my book is wrong.
The problem is, I hardly say anything about him, what I do say is
linked to a) his attacks on Patrick Holford the independent
nutritionist and b) an article that Colquhoun wrote in the science mag
Nature. As seems common with these skeptical types he says nothing
about these substantive issues.
But why oh why does a recently retired professor of pharmacology from
a major European University need to tell 'porkies' to make his point.
I have spent years correcting others who have said that the Wellcome
Trust rather than the Foundation manufactured AZT and I have never
held or expressed this view myself. But hey, let's not forget, these
people are just trying to destroy me, not constructively discuss my
book or a set of ideas held by thousands of people who hold different
views to theirs.
Just before we leave the 'Porking' Professor, I must update you on his
current retirement campaign against Patrick Holford. I heard recently
that he has a special 'operations room' in the cellar of his house,
where he barks out instruction to a secretary person as he walks round
a campaign table with his hands clasped behind his back.
Peeved that so many alternative health practitioners and others wrote
to the provost of UCL about his derisory web site, causing him to make
alterations to it, he has now written to the University where Patrick
Holford is a visiting lecturer asking to be supplied with all the
information about the teaching course that Holford provides there.
Colquhoun is clearly trying to bring down the course and get Holford
thrown off the University faculty. Well, I for one am just so glad
that the great and the good of our academics don't get involved in
personal attacks.
For a refutation of even this simply misinformation about the Wellcome
Foundation on the CiF site, I have to thank the campaigning lawyer
Clifford Miller, one of the two or three people who rose throughout
the debate, to the aid of my book.
Professor Colquhoun is sadly misinformed when he claims "Walker seems
to think that the Wellcome Trust make AZT". And in being so
misinformed, This casts doubt on everything else David Colquhoun
claims about the Martin Walker book. And I cast further doubt on his
claims here. Walker said no such thing. And Walker is not wrong.
Walker actually referred to "the Wellcome Foundation drug company" and
not to "The Wellcome Trust". The Wellcome Foundation is the
pharmaceutical company established by Sir Henry Wellcome and his
business partner Silas Mainville Burroughs and which has evolved into
GlaxoSmithKline. It was Burroughs Wellcome which claimed AZT could
prolong the life of patients with AIDS and a Burroughs Wellcome
Company filed for a patent on AZT in 1985.

My book was defended as well by John Stone, who always raises clear
questions in need of clear answers which he rarely gets. He has been
writing to the Guardian for some time questioning Ben's Bent Science
column but Guardian editors, like Eunuchs at the harem door don't even
pass his messages on.
One very clever contributor, whose identity is unknown to me made a
contribution in the form of an unedited short piece of my book which
specifically referred to Goldacre. This put questions in the public
domain which were not to be answered by any other contributor. I did
find this way of sneaking round the censures very intelligent. For
those of you who haven't yet read my book, I reproduce this taster
below:
Apricotston January 5, 2008 1:50 PM. This is what Martin J Walker has
to say about Dr Goldacre:

"The most empathetic and forgiving of us were imagining that Ben was a
junior doctor in a heavily pressed casualty unit in an inner City
area. If Ben was dealing with the dirty life and death of motor
accidents, shootings and drug-related deaths in north-east London for
example, perhaps he might be forgiven his hard bitten views, and his
anti airy-fairy concerns about people affected by electric air waves,
chemicals and bad vaccines.
It appears, however, that he has always been a post-grad clinical
research worker, now possibly studying for a Phd at King's College,
the home of the psychiatric school of 'all-in-the-mind aetiology'. In
all probability Goldacre has been at this University Hospital since
taking his MA, and was probably attached to it when he was taken on by
the Guardian.

If this is the case, most probably he doesn't see patients, except
when he passes them in the corridor at the Maudsley as he makes his
way to the Liaison Psychiatry Unit within the Institute of
Psychiatry,where he is studying under the Prince of Spin Professor
Simon Wessely, the head of the Liaison Psychiatry Department. Wessely
is an advisor to the Science Media Centre and on the Advisory panel of
the US American Council on Science and Health, one of the most heavily
funded pro industry lobby groups in the world.

The really good thing about Liaison psychiatry is that you can blend
all kinds of social issues with lots of mad-cap psychiatric ideas that
work well for industry. Liaison psychiatry is a form of psychiatry in
which the psychiatrist informs unsuspecting ordinary citizens who
report to hospitals with organic illnesses that they are actually
mentally ill. This diagnostic ability is particularly acute when the
Liaison psychiatrist meets up with anyone who has suffered an
environmental illness, a chemical insult, or any industry-related
illness.

For some time now, King's College has been deeply involved in the
programme of spin designed by industry and the New Labour government.
However, as is evident from the involvement of Goldacre there, the
relationship between The Lobby, the University and the hospital, is
not simple. As well as Wessely's role, ex-Revolutionary Communist
Party members have also played a part in bringing vested interests to
the college. Together with pseudo-scientific research into mental
illness and environmentally caused illness, King's is deeply involved
in risk analysis for various controvertial environmental factors."

I have no faith at all in the Guardian or it's ability to put it's
house in order. To me the questions that I raise about Goldacre in my
essay, are significant matters about the role of journalists in these
days of much spun information. I think these questions should stand
serious intellectual scrutiny and the outcome of this investigation
form ethical rules for journalists and their contact with, or their
writing about commercial vested interests, whether they be connected
with mobile phones or genetically modified crops.
That the editors and owners of the Guardian refuse to get involved in
proper public scrutiny of these questions, speaks volumes about their
cynicism, their political agenda and their regard for truth.
Clearly Ben and his Bent Science column will exist for many years to
come. If my book has managed anything, in the present climate, I will
be happy that it has affected people in the way it clearly affected,
Principled:
Principled January 5, 2008 4:38 PM
Clifford Miller, I did manage to view the book you recommended by
Martin J Walker at http://www.slingshotpublications.com/dwarfs01.pdf
thanks to your direction to the site. The mind boggles at the
intricacies of the vested interests and relationships Walker says
underpins the output of Ben Goldacre and other journos. I enjoy
reading Bens' works but must admit from now on I will endeavour to
read them with a slightly wider vision.

That and I would advise a slightly suspended sense of belief! But
while the readers of the Guardian might be this intuitively fair
minded we know now that Goldacre and his editors have no similar
aspirations and they will stay rooted to Bent Science and continue to
by-pass the views, feelings and critique of anyone who does not toe
the industry line.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/05/1

From Mast Sanity/Mast Network

[ http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Goldacre
http://freepage.twoday.net/search?q=Martin+J.+Walker
http://omega.twoday.net/search?q=Martin+J.+Walker ]